Commonwealth v. Pigaga

1. The keys should have been suppressed because, even on the evidence most favorable to the Commonwealth (and as the judge found), they were discovered and seized by the officer as the result of her direct, immediate and warrantless search of one of the defendant’s pockets rather than in the course of a pat-down for weapons which might have been authorized under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Compare Commonwealth v. *961McGrath, 365 Mass. 631, 631-632 (1974). 2. The false license (G. L. c. 90, § 24B) which was removed without a warrant from inside the defendant’s wallet after he was taken to…