SALEM, Mass. — A veteran Amesbury police officer’s hunch — accurate, as it turns out — was far from an adequate basis to search a car where police found a bag of unlicensed, high-powered handguns earlier this year, a Salem Superior Court judge has ruled.
Police also found approximately $30,000 worth of cocaine in the groin area of one of the car’s passengers during the Jan. 3 stop in Amesbury.
Police characterized the search as a permissible “safety sweep” of the vehicle during a routine stop of a car for an equipment violation.
But a judge, in a 16-page ruling, disputed that, calling the officer’s claim a “subterfuge” for a search that violated the Fourth Amendment’s right against unlawful searches and seizures by police.
“In sum, the search of the rear hatchback of the vehicle and its closed containers was not a safety sweep of the vehicle and cannot be sustained as such,” Salem Superior Court Judge Timothy Feeley wrote in a decision granting a motion to suppress evidence filed by lawyers for three Maine residents charged in the case. “It was an evidence search based on [the officer’s] hunch that the vehicle was carrying drugs from New York to Maine.”
The Essex County district attorney’s office has opted not to appeal Feeley’s finding in the case against three Maine residents, which was formally dropped by prosecutors yesterday because without the guns and cocaine, they have no other evidence against the three.
Anthony Jones, 25, of Portland, Andrew Palmer, 27, of Waterville, and Annissia Newcomb, 24, of Saco, were all arrested on charges of illegal possession of a large-capacity firearm, possessing firearms without a firearms identification card and carrying a dangerous weapon after Amesbury Patrolman David Noyes opened a drawstring bag he found in the hatchback area of the Chrysler PT Cruiser and saw four semi-automatic handguns, as well as ammunition.
Later, they added a charge of cocaine trafficking against Jones after noticing white powder cocaine all over the back seat area of the police car where he was sitting; Jones turned out to have a bag containing 85 grams (3 ounces) of cocaine tucked into his groin.
The three were in a car that belonged to one of Newcomb’s relatives and had just pulled off Route 495 after the low tire pressure indicator light came on.
The car, which had Maine registration plates, pulled into a closed gas station on Route 110 in Amesbury, just past the exit ramp. It was around 2 a.m.
Noyes saw the car pull in, and said he noticed that the license plate light was not working.
Noyes later testified that there had been a series of burglaries to businesses along that stretch of roadway, located between Routes 495 and 95.
Noyes turned on his lights and pulled up to the exit to block the car from pulling out, then approached.
Noyes later testified during the motion to suppress hearing that while he was asking for identification from the driver, Newcomb, the two passengers, Jones and Palmer, appeared to be pulling pieces of clothing toward their necks.
Noyes hadn’t told the three why he was stopping them, instead asking them a series of questions about where they were coming from and why they were at the station. One of the three told him they were on their way back to Maine from New York.
The judge, in his ruling, noted that Newcomb is white, while Jones and Palmer are African-American.
Noyes asked the passengers for identification, then ordered all three out of the car, pat-frisked them, found nothing at that point and then told Newcomb that “no one was getting back in the car or leaving until the vehicle was searched for weapons,” Feeley wrote. At that point, Newcomb told the officer, “go ahead and search.” That, suggested the judge, was not a voluntary consent.
No weapons were found in the passenger compartment of the car. At that point, backup officers had arrived, and Noyes asked another officer, Raymond Landry, to search the area behind the rear seats.
The first bag checked turned out to contain the guns.
The judge noted that at some point during the encounter, Noyes instructed a dispatcher to check all three individuals in the car for warrants. None of them had any warrants.
“Noyes did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion at the time of the stop, or for that matter, during the duration of the stop, to believe that the occupants of the vehicle were engaged in criminal activity related to burglaries along Route 110 or drug distribution,” Feeley wrote.
The judge said in his ruling that while Noyes was not justified in making the sweep, he “would have been well within his rights … to engage in a consensual encounter with the vehicle,” suggesting that he could have simply pulled alongside the car, without turning on the police lights, and asked the driver what she was doing there at that hour. That might have eventually elicited enough information to justify a search, said the judge.



sucks for that officer.
But not for the 4th Amendment
hopefully ….. you won’t be the next victim of those thugs, thieves, and guns
better to be a victim of “those thugs” then to ignore the constitution. I wonder if you’d feel the same if you were stopped for a tail-light out and the cop decided to search your car, perhaps frisk your wife, and your 14 year old daughter. Is that ok?
you can’t explain this to a sheep who would welcome a police state on the false hope of “security”.
Sheep need shepherds. Wolves and tigers do not. That means 99% of the time the sheep is the victim.
Lucky us… soon no more sheep.
Victims don’t often carry handguns !
I presume you’re talking about the Amesbury police dept.
Why don’t you call them child moesters while you’re at it.
Hopefully I will, and hopefully they arrive here at night. We might have to lose, or reassign the word “victim” however.
sucks for the taxpayers that they had to waste all this money on a trial because that officer does not know how to do his job
Hurrah for the United States Constitution!
yes, we all need to be glad there are more guns, thieves, and crooks on the loose….pray they don’t want anything that belongs to you
Ok a cop stop you an he tells you he thinks you have drugs an guns in your car an searches it .. Is that ok ?
How many unregistered EBT cards did they find??
Why missing yours?
Yes ,actually.
I am missing three of them.
It said nothing about those cards ?
Not my car. He must describe the place to be searched, and the items to be seized. Failure to do either of those steps renders him ball-less.
Why do you hate Freedom?
ask the town of Newton CT….they are the only ones entitled to answer that…..I could care less who searches my car, as does any law abiding citizen…..you only care if you know there are illegal items in your car….. the freedom to keep your family alive and not be shot by crazies with guns is the only freedom law abiding citizens want to see before more innocents are killed by thugs and thieves
Total Complete bull.
Just because I don’t want someone searching my things without the legal paperwork to do so does not mean I am some kind of law breaker.
Matter of fact I am going one step further and say that people who break the law and search without the proper paperwork need to earn a trip to court. I mean He did break the law right?
Actually I do care who searches my car.
What? Newtown? Spoken like a true slave! Demand a police state? not here slave!
Why don’t you research the newtown shooting on your own? Because the mainstream press did nothing but bungle the story.
Do you know what actually happened there? Really? How so?
I’m a law abiding citizen. No one is searching my home or my person without a search warrant or unless I’m arrested.
I’m a law abiding citizen born with the inalienable right to conceal my papers property and affairs from unwarranted searches.under the fourth amendment. You are damn straight I will stop a cop or anyone else who attempts to trample that RIGHT.
Screw Newton Connecticut, and all of you people who use the tragedy there to push your fascist agenda. That’s right fascist… look it up.
These people are drug dealers, not thieves. There is a big difference. These people actually earn their money. Right, wrong, or indifferant, drug dealers are not the ones kicking doors in and stealing from inocent people.
Unless they want drugs held by other criminals then they do invade and take drugs.
The CIA Iis the biggest drug dealin institution on the planet.
Between the Judge and the Cop one did their job properly and the other failed miserably. One protected citizens and the other endangered them. If you want criminals to go to jail, make sure cops do their jobs right.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
I’m still in shock that a judge would have the kahunas to uphold the US Constitution. This ain’t nazi germany and every car does not need to be searched.
The cop should have known well enough to have just done what any cop in this situation does when needing a little justification for a search and just said that he smelled a dead body, or heard a muffled cry. When none is found then no matter, but the drugs & guns would still be kosher finds.
You watch too many movies, apparently. If the officer had claimed to have smelled a dead body or heard a muffled cry, he would need to produce whatever it was he “smelled” or “heard,” because no defense lawyer would ever let him get away with such an absurd excuse.
The “dead body” is only slightly less believable than “plate light out” excuse. Maybe this judge “had a hunch” that the cop was not being truthful, or this cop is known for being inventive, and decided to “pull him over” for a search. Or, being Massachusetts, somebody paid the right people the right amount to get these young entrepreneurs a “get out of jail free” card. Either way If they have a brain cell left, they will stop playing in the “snow” now.
Ridiculous.
MA won’t allow the “smell” of Pot as evidence for a search anymore….Im not sure about dead bodies…
Nope if you are looking for a DB in Massachusetts, and do not find it, anything else that you DO find is inadmissible In court. Secondly this is an equipment stop which is (according to the first District Court of Appeals) is not a license to fish for evidence of a crime.
I didn’t think it was legal to engage in a consensual encounter with a vehicle in Massachusetts.
Tell that to Clint Eastwood, who carries on his most intelligent coversations with empty chairs.
I agree with the judge but I highly doubt the three people in question will become highly productive citizens in the near future.
same here. but i am glad for the rest of us and our freedom.
Right now they are just happy not to go to prison for 25 years. They won’t be smart enough to quit, though. They owe the suppliers for 3 oz of coke which has to be a bundle.
Police are trained to profile.
No….it comes naturally to some of us. AND, it works too!
Are you implying that you’re a cop?
Well, are you … punk?
Awww aren’t you a special snowflake.
Also to twist facts . IE say they do not recall when they really do.
It apparently works well considering what was found. It is just to bad that the officer did not question them more to give them an opportunity to hang themselves, instead they get to walk.
Never consent to any search. let them get a warrant.. Then I suggest every one for every crime get a jury trial.. threating people durning plea bargins should put the DA’s in prison
“I suggest every one for every crime get a jury trial.” And we wonder why everything takes 45 years in the criminal justice system these days…
He said to ‘go ahead and search’! What more permission did he need for christo’s sake? It was a damned good bust!.
My adopted State and its judges are a constant source of head shaking embarrassment!
It’s kind of like if you were mugged and told the mugger “go ahead, take my wallet”. Not true consent.
Comparing a cop to a mugger is more than cynical.
Cops can be told to get a warrant plus don’t usually threaten bodily harm.
If he had not been told that he would not be allowed back into his car until a search was completed, then that statement might have been sufficient. However he only made the statement under duress after the police officer declared that he was going to be illegally detained if he did not waive his rights.
All he had to say was we’ll all just stay here ’till a warrant is issued , if you can get one.
It was not his responsibility to correct the officer’s blatant error.
It was the defense attorney’s and judge’s job to make that correction.
Did they really say go ahead and search? Or is that just what the cop said to protect his bust? Betcha the judge thinks its the second choice. . . .
Why do comments have to wait for moderation? Don’t we flag inappropriate comments around here? This must be a very touchy subject. At least the Constitution won this round but free speech is still monitored and moderated.
only comments with certain naughty words wait for moderation.
Actually the words do not have to be “naughty” the word that describes the German Socialist movement of the 1930’s is not permitted in any context.
Can’t imagine why. I mean, there are so many legitimate uses for that word in online news-comment conversations. The odds of it being misused for offensive rhetorical purposes are vanishingly small!
You have no right to free speech in some one else’s publication. If you feel that you have a right to free speech buy your own publication and publish / broadcast your opinions. The BDN does not have to supply you with a platform to air your views.
I realize that 100% but it still seems childish. We are all adults here and can handle a little provocative thinking.
Few are not. Unfortunately to rest of us.
I happen to agree with the judge. The cop was wrong and the judge said so. If it was such a strong hunch he should have followed the law and got a search warrant. Citizens have to obey the law…so do the police. But I’m glad they got some guns off the streets. We all have to play by the same rules.
A search Warrant would have to describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Since the cop had no idea what these bozos were doing, he had no direct knowledge to describe what he was looking for.
He should have asked for permission to search. He didn’t
the police officer could have asked directly for permission to search the vehicle.if he was denied,he could simply have called in a canine unit,who would have immediately found the drugs,no warrant needed.the guns would have been found during the subsequent search.the police officer did not follow the rules,the criminals win. no donut for him.
Nope. no canine unit without a warrant during an equipment stop violation in Massachusetts. The canine can’t search without a warrant anymore than the officer can.
Newcomb gave him permission to seargh the car when asked.
Did the judge miss that part?
Here, again, the criminals were the ones with the guns in a highly restricted Mass., gun controlled environment, and the p-head judge rules for them.
Unbelievable !
What’s ‘unbelievable’ is that you are so clueless about your own Constitutional rights, that you would so willing give away somebody else’s!
How old are you? Did they even teach you how to read, much less Civics, or American History in grade school? Junior high?
That ‘p-head judge’ graduated from college AND law school and most certainly did address the ‘non-consent’ issue. There was no consent!
It’s people like you who are the danger, here.
At that point, Newcomb told the officer, “go ahead and search.”
Pretty simple english.
Enough so that even you could understand.
Reading for comprehension isn’t your strong suit.
Or: the cop said Newcomb told him to go ahead but newcomb never said it.
The judge missed nothing. You however …
The cop declared he was going to search. He was not asking permission as the law demands. Ever try to stop a cop from doing something he was intent on doing…. not a good place to be.
” unlicensed, high-powered handguns” … “illegal possession of a large-capacity firearm”
wow, big words from the media. trying to scare people i think.
high powered handguns? like what? most handguns are “high powered”
large capacity firearm?
never heard of such a thing.
liberal b.s. more of the “assault weapon” crowd.
Printing the exact words used in the written judgement is not inappropriate. Your silliness however …
so, what I really want to know is this; since it was an illegal search, did the cops return their guns and coke?
LOL
Under the law it would be mandatory. If I were the defendant, I’d get the hell outta there and let my lawyer argue the finer points.
The Judge must be a drug dealer or user, besides being a looser! There are times when police officers need to rely on there instincts and in this case the Judge and the law is wrong and the officer was right!
Why do you hate America and our rights?
I guess you didn’t read what I wrote! I don’t always agree with the police and I don’t want them harassing decent people but there are too many laws that protect criminals rights! Police officers are trained to use there instincts and there are times they should act on those instincts. As far as I am concerned when you decide to become a criminal and break the law, you give up all your rights under the law! In most cases, police officers are decent people and are trying to do a good job.
Really? What’s your level of education?
Enough is enough, this is not a debate, it is people expressing there feelings and opinions about a specific event. You don’t give a damn about what happened, you just want to get your kicks provoking someone! The end
A dropout. No surprise there.
But the thing is we can not make legal protections which don’t include EVERYONE. When cops ask me where I am going, I don’t tell them. My interaction with law enforcement includes giving them my license and sitting silently waiting for my ticket. I am absolutely sure that some tickets would not be issued, or would turn to warnings if I engaged in a little gentile prater with cops. I don’t.
I don’t have to. this is the USA (for a little longer anyway.)
Like it or not the officer was not “right”.
Because this officer did not follow the law these “thugs” will go free.
Do I want these guys running around free? Not really – so frankly I wish the police would have followed the simple law that would have made this a legal bust.
They didn’t.
No, the 4th amendment says that the cop was wrong. I wish he would have waited to get the probable cause he needed, I am sure it was lurking close by.
We wonder how horrible things keep happening in our country? Criminals can do as they please, and nothing can be done to stop them. It’s funny how many people are so well versed on the fourth amendment. Miss the old days when people committing crimes got in trouble. Now they’re all VICTIMS of police officers violating their 4th amendment rights.
Generalize much?
Those that give up their freedom for fear will loose their freedom but not there fear.
Anthony Jones, 25, of Portland, Andrew Palmer, 27, of Waterville, and
Annissia Newcomb, 24, of Saco
They may get off this time, but I still wouldn’t hang around them.
even judges in Mass are crooked, just like Maine ones…….
You know how it goes: If the judges can be bought so can the cops and the prosecutors . . .
Never talk to the police.
Thank you judge! The constitution actually honored in a court? What?
Look for this judge to be either “fired” or disappeared soon. Can’t tolerate actually enforcing the constitution and bill of rights!
the government has been playing fast and loose with the 4th amendment. it’s too bad these guys weren’t put away but 4th amendment rights cannot be violated. it’s a slippery slope if that happens.
Two mistakes the initial officer made:
1. He should have asked for consent to search, verbal or written, and/or…
2. He should have called for a drug K-9. A K-9 “hit” is probable cause to search, and that has been upheld by the courts.
And I disagree with the judge that the suspect’s comment “Go ahead and search” is not consent. It is a declaration allowing the officer(s) to proceed.