Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Commonwealth v. Minh Ngo
Citations: 439 N.E.2d 839; 14 Mass. App. Ct. 339; 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1435
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; August 26, 1982; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction of Minh Ngo for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, addressing the legality of two searches that led to the evidence against him. The first search was a warrantless search of Ngo's automobile following his arrest, which occurred after a drug buyer, cooperating with police, arranged a purchase from Ngo. The court found that the police had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained drugs and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. Although Ngo argued there was ample time to secure an anticipatory warrant, the court agreed with the lower judge's determination that the two-hour window between the buyer's call to Ngo and the planned sale was insufficient for the police to obtain a warrant due to the logistical challenges involved in assembling surveillance teams and the imminent nature of the drug transaction. The judge determined that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle, primarily due to the lack of information regarding which of the defendant's four vehicles was being driven to the location. The defendant argued that police could have sought an anticipatory warrant, referencing Commonwealth v. Soares, but the judge concluded that the time constraints made obtaining a warrant impractical. Consequently, the warrantless search was deemed valid, and the judge's decision to deny the suppression motion concerning the vehicle was upheld. Regarding the garage search, the defendant claimed the search warrant was invalid because it relied on information from the prior unlawful vehicle search. However, since the vehicle search was ruled lawful, the observations made during that search could be included in the affidavit for the garage search warrant. The judgment was affirmed. The judge noted that the vehicle search occurred post-arrest, referencing New York v. Belton, which permits police to search a vehicle's passenger compartment without a warrant following a lawful arrest. However, since the Commonwealth based its suppression argument on the automobile exception rather than the arrest justification, Belton was not determinative in this case. The judge also acknowledged United States v. Ross, which allows warrantless searches of vehicles with probable cause, but chose not to rely on it due to uncertainties regarding its applicability to the parked vehicle context. Lastly, the agent's testimony indicated that compiling sufficient intelligence for a warrant would have taken time, supporting the judge's finding that obtaining a warrant was not feasible under the circumstances.