Commonwealth v. Harold M. Miller.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0613
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-613

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

HAROLD M. MILLER.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury-waived trial, a District Court judge convicted

the defendant of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.

On appeal, the defendant argues that a different judge should

have granted his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the

judge's order denying the defendant's motion.

After observing what they believed was an illegal drug

transaction between the defendant and a known drug user on the

afternoon of October 20, 2021, members of the Suburban Middlesex

County Drug Task Force (task force) stopped the defendant.

Following a brief conversation with the defendant, detectives

pat frisked him and found a box cutter, cash, and a cell phone.

A detective then took the defendant's car keys, opened the trunk of his car, and saw plastic sandwich bags and a digital scale

with white powder residue that the detective believed was

cocaine. Another detective searched the defendant and felt

small round packages that he recognized as consistent with

narcotics packaged for sale concealed in the groin area of the

defendant's sweatpants. The detectives transported the

defendant to the Watertown police station, where they recovered

seventeen individually packaged bags of cocaine from the mesh

liner of the shorts the defendant wore under his sweatpants.

Discussion. "In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress

evidence, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact

absent clear error" (citation omitted). Commonwealth v.

Daveiga, 489 Mass. 342, 346 (2022). "We review independently

the application of constitutional principles to the facts found"

(citation omitted). Id. The parties agree that the only issue

before us is whether there was probable cause to believe the

defendant had engaged in an illegal drug transaction.

Probable cause to arrest an individual for an illegal drug

transaction may be established where experienced narcotics

officers observe "a sequence of activity consistent with a drug

sale at a place notorious for illicit activity in narcotics."

Commonwealth v. Stewart, 469 Mass. 257, 262 (2014), quoting

Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238, 242 (1992). Relevant

2 factors indicating that a defendant committed a street level

drug crime include (1) a location where the police know drug

transactions are common, (2) furtive actions by the participant,

(3) an unusual transaction, and (4) an experienced officer on

the scene regards the event as consistent with a drug

transaction. See Santaliz, supra at 241; Commonwealth v. Santa

Maria, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 490, 494 (2020).

Here, all of the Santaliz factors were present based on the

facts found by the motion judge and the uncontroverted testimony

of the witnesses that was credited by the judge. See

Commonwealth v. Matta, 483 Mass. 357, 358 (2019);

Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 474 Mass. 10, 11 (2016). The

apartment in Waltham where Detectives Jason Ferranti and Timothy

Cadman first encountered the defendant on the day in question

was under surveillance based on numerous complaints of drug

activity. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 448,

452 (2015) (citizen reports of drug activity contributed to

circumstantial evidence of drug transaction). Two brothers

known to the detectives to be drug users and distributors lived

at the apartment, and Detective Ferranti previously had seen

several "known drug users" coming to the residence during his

investigation. See Commonwealth v. Sanders, 90 Mass. App. Ct.

660, 665 (2016) (police knowledge of drug activity at location

3 was probable cause factor). Detective Ferranti also had seen

the defendant "come and go" from the same apartment in the past.

The defendant parked his car around the corner approximately one

hundred yards away, despite parking being "readily available

directly in front of the apartment." He entered and

"immediately" exited the apartment. Next, the defendant drove

to a bank and then to a church parking lot, where he met with

Brian LaRosa, whom Detective Ferranti knew to be a drug user.

See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703, 709 (1998)

(interacting with known drug users supports probable cause).

LaRosa removed a backpack from the defendant's car and put it in

the vehicle's trunk. He then got into the car, drove

approximately one hundred yards with the defendant, and got out

of the vehicle without retrieving the backpack. Detective

Ferranti described it as a "meaningless ride" or "a ride to

nowhere." See Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 469,

471 (2018) ("ride to nowhere" was circumstantial evidence of

illegal drug transaction). Cf. Sanders, supra at 665-666

(unusual nature of "car meets" where defendant reached hand into

window of vehicle and quickly withdrew it contributed to

probable cause). Finally, Detective Ferranti, who had extensive

training and experience in narcotics offenses, testified that he

believed he had witnessed a street-level drug transaction.

4 In addition, when detectives initially spoke to the

defendant, he denied meeting with LaRosa. Such a "false denial

. . . strengthen[ed] the suspicion that the defendant had

participated in a drug transaction." Stewart, 469 Mass. at 264.

Furthermore, the detectives had information specific to the

defendant's history of drug activity. See Sanders, 90 Mass.

App. Ct. at 665 (police knowledge that defendant previously

arrested for drug offenses "critically important factor" in

probable cause determination). Detective Cadman had witnessed

what he believed was a drug transaction between the defendant

and one of the residents of the Waltham apartment several months

earlier. Detective Ferranti was aware that another member of

the task force recently had seen a videotape of the defendant

"entering and quickly exiting the residence of a known drug user

in [Watertown]." Finally, the detectives knew that the

defendant had a prior conviction of trafficking in narcotics for

which he had served ten years in State prison.

In sum, we conclude that the facts found by the motion

judge established probable cause to believe the defendant had

participated in an illegal drug transaction at the time the

5 police stopped him. Accordingly, the searches of the defendant

and the trunk of his car were justified.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Brennan & D'Angelo, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: March 31, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.