Commonwealth v. Meneide
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtWolohojian, J.
Before us is the Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal from an order allowing, in part, the defendant’s motion to suppress. At issue is the search of an automobile after a routine traffic stop during which a noncriminal amount of marijuana was found. The motion judge found that safety concerns justified the exit order and patfrisk of the driver, but that once the patfrisk resulted in the discovery of only a noncriminal quantity of marijuana, safety concerns did not justify searching the back seat armrest. We affirm.
Background. We summarize the findings of the motion judge, none of which are…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Commonwealth v. SilvaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Commonwealth v. GonsalvesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LongMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
- Commonwealth v. VillagranMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017
- Commonwealth v. David EllisMassachusetts Superior Court · 2025
- Commonwealth v. Torres-PaganMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2018
- Commonwealth v. VillagranMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017