Commonwealth v. Pappalardo

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Pappalardo

409 N.E.2d 815, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 897

DecidedSeptember 19, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 409 N.E.2d 815 (Commonwealth v. Pappalardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Pappalardo, 409 N.E.2d 815, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 897 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

After a trial before a six-man jury in a District Court, the defendant was convicted of violating G. L. c. 269, § 10(a) (carrying a firearm without a license), and G. L. c. 269, § 10(h) (unlawful possession of ammunition), and was sentenced. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The defendant concedes the lawfulness of the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. We hold that in the circumstances of this case (1) it was proper for the police officer to cause the occupants to step out of the car, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-111 (1977), Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 376 Mass. 502, 505 (1978); and (2) the “pat frisk” of the defendant by the officer which led to the discovery of the firearm and ammunition was reasonable under the principles set out in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968). See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111-112. Compare Commonwealth v. Riggins, 366 Mass. 81, 86-87 (1974). Contrast Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402, 407 (1974).

Judgments affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

After a trial before a six-man jury in a District Court, the defendant was convicted of violating G. L. c. 269, § 10(a) (carrying a firearm without a license), and G. L. c. 269, § 10(h) (unlawful possession of ammunition), and was sentenced. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The defendant concedes the lawfulness of the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. We hold that in the circumstances of this case (1) it was proper for the police officer to cause the occupants to step out of the car, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-111 (1977), Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 376 Mass. 502, 505 (1978); and (2) the “pat frisk” of the defendant by the officer which led to the discovery of the firearm and ammunition was reasonable under the principles set out in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968). See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111-112. Compare Commonwealth v. Riggins, 366 Mass. 81, 86-87 (1974). Contrast Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402, 407 (1974).

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 N.E.2d 815, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-pappalardo-massappct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack