99
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPDEN, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CRIMINAL ACTION
No. 14-1204
COMMONWEALTH
a AUS 20 20
be
DERRICK BROWN Chung
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS,
‘The Defendant, Derrick Brown, is charged with Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled
Substance (Class B ~ Cocaine) Subsequent Offense. For the reasons set forth below, Mr.
Brown’s Motion is ALLOWED.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at hearing, I find as
follows:
Springfield Police Detective Mark Templeman has been a member of the Springfield
Police Department for approximately twenty years. He has been assigned to the Nercoties
Bureau for 10 years, On February 12, 2014, Detective Templeman was working as an
undercover officer in the purchase of crack cocaine at 168 East St., Springfield (hereinafter
referred to as the “Premises”). Detective Templeman arrived at the Premises at approximately
5:10 PM on that date. For the two week period prior to 2/12/14, the police had been
investigating the Premises for suspected narcotics activity.
Detective Templeman was inside the Premises for approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
‘When he entered the Premises, individuals were smoking a small amount of crack cocaine.
Detective Templeman gave Sabrina Hoppe Brown $100 pre-recorded buy money forapproximately 1/16 of a gram of crack cocaine. Ms. Hoppe left the Premises with the money
and was outside for two three minutes when she returned with the crack cocaine, When Ms.
Hoppe returned with the crack cocaine, she gave it to Detective Templeman and left. Detective
Templeman never saw Mr, Brown at the Premises. Although there were support officers outside
the Premises, Detective Templeman did not make visual contact with them.
On that same date, Springfield Police Officers Detective Greg Bigda and Lieut. Stephen
Kent were involved in a series of undercover narcotic buys at the Premises. Both are
experionced narcotics detectives. The two travelled to the vicinity of the Premises in an
unmarked cruiser at approximately 5:10 PM. Lieut, Kent was operating the cruiser’s radio and
Detective Bigda was driving,
At that time, Detective Bigda and Lieut. Kent were performing a stationary surveillance
near Bowles Park and the Premises, After twenty to thirty minutes, they observed Mr. Brown.
operating a white Toyota Camry (hereinafter referred to as the “Camry”), Mr. Brown parked the
Camry alongside Bowles Park. The officers were approximately 200 feet from the Camry with.
an unobstructed view utilizing binoculars. Lieut. Kent radioed a deseription of a 30 to 35 year
old black male with a dark complexion. Both officers identified Mr. Brown in court as the
operator of the Camry.
Detective Bigda and Lieut. Kent’s observations as to what ensued are significantly
different. Detective Bigda testified that he observed the Camry stopped next to Bowles Park.
Detective Bigda testified that as he and Lieut. Kent drove past the Camry, he observed a woman
exit the Premises, approach the Camry, and enter the Camry. The Premises is several houses
away from the area where the Camry had been parked. He testified that the Camry drove aroundthe block with Detective Bigda and Lieut. Kent in “leap frog” pursuit. Detective Bigda testified
that Mr, Brown dropped the woman off several blocks from the Premises and drove off.
Licut. Kent likewise testified that he observed the Camry stop next to Bowles Park. But,
Lieut. Kent testified that Mr, Brown was and remained the lone occupant ofthe Camry.
According to Lieut. Kent, he and Detective Bigda drove past and pursued the Camry as Mr.
Brown droved away.
‘The officers’ observations are inconsistent in a manner which is fundamental. No
evidence was presented that Lieut. Kent observed a woman exit the Premises, approach the
Camry, and enter the Camry. No evidence was presented that Lieut. Kent observed the Camry
drive around the block, and that Mr. Brown dropped the women off several blocks from the
Premises and drove off.
‘The distinctions in Detective Bigda and Lieut. Kent’s observations is not de minimus. In
light of the material inconsistencies in Det. Bigda and Lieut. Kent’s testimonies relating to their
observations of Mr. Brown and the Camry while in the vicinity of Bowles Park and the Premises,
1 oredit neither testimony as to such observations.
Both officers testified that they pursued the Camry to lower Franklin Street where Mr.
Brown stopped end briefly spoke with a female, The Camry continued onto Hartley Street and
toward Newbury Street.
Springfield Police Officer Jose Feliciano has been a member of the Springfield Police
Department for approximately twenty years. On February 12, 2014, Officer Feliciano was
patrolling in a marked cruiser with Officer Manny Ayala. Both were in uniform. The officers
received a telephone call from Detective Templeman giving them a description of the Camryincluding a New York license plate number. ‘The officers were asked to stop the Camry and
obtain identification information from Mr. Brown,
Officers Feliciano and Ayala first observed the Camry in front of 50 Hartley Street. The Camry
‘met the description they received from Detective Templeman, Although Officer Feliciano could
‘not ascertain the precise license plate number for the Camry, he did observe that the Camry bore
a New York registration. When Officer Feliciano first observed the Camry, it was stationary and
unoccupied. The Officers parked one-half block down the street from the Camry. Shortly
thereafter, they observed Mr. Brown enter the Camry alone. Mr. Brown was committing no
‘taflic infraction. The officers activated their overhead lights and stopped Mr. Brown. They did
so because he was the subject of Detective Templeman’s investigation.
Offficer Feliciano asked Mr. Brown for his driver’s license and registration. ‘The Officers
told Mr. Brown that they were performing an investigation of a robbery that had occurred at
Liberty Plaza. Officer Feliciano asked Mr. Brown where he lived. Mr. Brown replied that he
lived on Massreco Street, That address did not match that on Mr. Brown's driver’s license, The
Officers checked Mr, Brown’s personal information. In turn, they advised Mr. Brown that he
‘was not the individual they were looking for and was free to go. The entire stop lasted
approximately 8 minutes. Officer Feliciano telephoned Detective Templeman and relayed Mr.
Brown’s name and date of birth. Officer Feliciano had no further involvement with the
investigation,
When Detective Bigda and Lieut. Kent returned to the police station, Detective
Templeman showed them a single photo of Mr. Brown, The two officers confirmed that he was
the individual they had observed in the Camry on February 12, 2014 in the vicinity of Bowles
Park and the Premises.go ao
On February 13, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Lieut. Kent and Detective Bigda retumed to 50
Hartley Street in furtherance of their investigation. On that date, they saw the Camry parked in
front of 50 Hartley Street, Mr. Brown was shoveling snow in front of the residence.
Il, DISCUSSION
The police were not justified in stopping the Camry, It is well-settled that, “A police
officer may stop a vehicle in order to conduct a threshold inquiry iC he has a reasonable suspicion
that the occupants have committed, are committing, or about to commit a crime.”
Commonwealth v. Wren, 391 Mass. 705, 707 (1984). The suspicion must “be based on specific
and articulable facts and specific reasonable inferences which follow from such facts in light of
the Officer's experience.” Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402, 406 (1974).
‘The police had no reasonable suspicion to stop the Camry. The facts established lead to
xo reasonable suspicion that Mr. Brown had committed, was committing, or was about to
commit a crime.” In particular, the Commonwealth has not met its burden of proof in
establishing a nexus between Mr. Brown and the controlled buy of crack cocaine to Detective
‘Templeman.
Asa result of the Commonwealth’s failure to have met its burden of proof, the
identification information Officers Ayala and Feliciano procured, the RMV photo the police
query produced, and Detective Bigda and Lieut. Kent’s subsequent identification of that photo
constitute “fruit of the poisonous tree” derivative of the unlawful stop. See Wong Sun v. United
States, supra at 486 (1963).ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to
Vee
D MASON
Justice of the Superior Court
Suppress is ALLOWED.
DATE: August 20, 2015