Judge Cornetta appears to declare the 7 day inspection requirement invalid.
Where, during a routine traffic stop, the police determined an inspection sticker on the defendant's car to be invalid, entered the vehicle and removed the inspection sticker, I find that the officers acted pursuant to an invalid administrative agency regulation and that evidence coming into the commonwealth's possession through the officers' acts must be ordered suppressed.
Background
"On March 26, 2006 during daylight hours, the defendant's motor vehicle was stopped on U.S. Route One in Danvers, Massachusetts. The officer and his partner stopping the vehicle is said to have observed a defective right rear turn signal lens on the vehicle.
"The defendant pulled his vehicle to the side of the road in reasonable fashion upon the command of the police and upon request, provided the officer with his license and registration, both of which were valid. The officer then proceeded to the front right of the vehicle to observe the vehicle's inspection sticker.
"Taking down the serial number information from the inspection sticker, the officer then ran that information through his cruiser's onboard computer to the Registry of Motor Vehicles computer data base. The Registry's reply indicated that while the sticker displayed on the vehicle showed that it was still valid, under 540 CMR 400 et al., an administrative regulation adopted by the agency, since the vehicle's ownership had been exchanged during the time when the sticker was otherwise valid, it was now invalid since per the administrative regulation, the vehicle should have been reinspected by the new owner who would then also be required to pay an additional twenty nine dollars fee for this re inspection due to the vehicle's exchange of ownership.
"Acting upon the apparent authority of this administrative regulation, the officer proceeded to enter the vehicle and remove the vehicle's inspection sticker. When he so entered the vehicle, without any consent given by the operator, the officer testified that he observed a knife bulging out of the operator's pocket. The operator was then immediately removed from the vehicle by the police, was patted down and the knife was removed. Police then questioned the operator who admitted to possessing a class B controlled substance and a class C controlled substance. He was searched and such substances, consistent with personal use were found upon his person by the police.
"He was then arrested and charged with an equipment violation, an inspection sticker violation and possession of a class B and a class C controlled substance.
"The defendant has filed a motion seeking to suppress the evidence seized in this matter and questioning upon constitutional grounds a number of actions taken by the police in this.
"However, ruling is now entered that this matter can be determined by the Court upon a much narrower issue."
Discussion
"G.L. c. 90, Sects. 7A and 7V, provides for a comprehensive scheme of inspecting motor vehicles regarding issues of equipment safety and air quality. Every registrant must submit his (her) vehicle annually to inspection by a Registry of Motor Vehicles designated mechanic and is required to pay a twenty nine dollar fee for that inspection.
Vehicles passing the inspection process are provided with a certification sticker which is valid for one year. Vehicles failing the inspection are issued a rejection sticker. The defects found in the vehicle involving safety and environmental quality must then be corrected by the registrant within a number of days or the vehicle must be removed from the road. Violations of this law are civil in nature carrying a fifty dollars civil assessment and form the basis for permitting police to stop and cite an operator.
"While the public purpose associated with the inspection law is valid (i.e. public safety and environmental concerns), the administrative regulation requiring that such an inspections be conducted on a greater than annual basis (as is authorized by the legislature) is not.
"The Commonwealth can point to no valid public policy associated with this administrative practice which in essence shifts the inspection process from one that is vehicle oriented to one that is ownership oriented. If a vehicle passes an inspection which is valid for one year, how can a mere transfer of ownership within that one year negate the prior valid inspection certification?
"In addition, the requirement that a new owner pay an additional twenty nine dollars reinspection fee raises the question of whether the agency's action is aimed at public safety and environmental concerns or is simply being disguised as a revenue raising measure.
"In either case, the administrative regulation is preempted by the legislature's actions upon this public policy issue and the Registry of Motor Vehicles is without authority to impose a more stringent policy in this area than the legislature has authorized.
"Accordingly, ruling is now entered that on March 26, 2006, the police acted without authority in determining that the inspection sticker on the defendant's vehicle was invalid and further acted impermissibly in entering the vehicle without the operator's consent and removing the inspection sticker from the vehicle on the side of the road during a routine traffic stop.
"Any evidence coming into the Commonwealth's possession after those impermissible acts by the police relying upon an invalid administrative agency regulation must ... now be ordered suppressed. ..."
Commonwealth v. Congley (Lawyers Weekly No. 16-017-06) (3 pages) (Cornetta, J.) (Salem District Court) (Docket No. 0636-CR-1074) (Aug. 18, 2006).
Posted by: Edmizer1
Wow, this decision is bad and should be appealed. As any police officer knows, there are many reasons why persons are required to get a new inspection sticker when ownership changes. Insepction checks not only safety, but also registration status, electronically checks mileage status on newer vehicles, and the proper placement of new plates and reg stickers. This decision will be good for unethical used car dealers because there will be no requirement to inspect many vehicles which will hurt buyers who won't be able to make claims of some defects until after the warranty is expired. The re-inspection requirement has always been a saftey valve for these situations.
Posted by: Clouseau
What a joke! Cops have been going by these standards set by the RMV for years. Now some lib judge feels the stops are no good due to being administrative only? Throw out the 90/20 if he feels that way. The cops acted in good faith using standard procedure. Why dump the 94C?
I hope I live to see the day that Mass judges are on the ballot every four years!
Posted by: Curious EMT
The judge states "The Commonwealth can point to no valid public policy associated with this administrative practice which in essence shifts the inspection process from one that is vehicle oriented to one that is ownership oriented. "
540 CMR 4.03 states " Every owner or person in control of a motor vehicle which is newly acquired in the Commonwealth shall submit such a motor vehicle for a required inspection within seven days of the date on which the motor vehicle is registered to said owner in the Commonwealth."
Is the judge infering that CMR's are no longer binding administrative law?
Posted by: NBC515
The registration of the vehicle is printed on the sticker...so how can someone have a valid sticker when the registration # on the sticker is not the same registration on the automobile?
Posted by: Banshees'Will
How about the Lemon Law,
The previous owner could have had major problems with the vehicle since it was last inspected and never told the new owner at the time of the sale.
How about the new owner bought the same type of vehilce cheap, but with the leather interior although it needs a brake job. He swaps out the brakes that he just did on the old car and tada, better car and then he sells it with a good sticker "see it just passed inspection"
How about the guy that has a car made of stolen parts (high theft lables on the fenders bumpers, computer, bad wiring) the new owner would not know for a whole year that the vehicle that the computers stolen and junked
The Massachusetts Lemon Aid Law allows you to void or cancel a motor vehicle contract or sale if your vehicle fails to pass inspection within seven days from the date of sale AND if the estimated costs of repairs of emissions or safety related defects exceed 10% of the purchase price. (M.G.L. c. 90 §7N) This law applies to both dealer and private party sales of cars and motorcycles purchased for personal or family use. Dealers must display your Lemon Aid rights by putting a sticker on the left front window of each used car at the time of delivery. Vehicle Inspection And Registration Requirements
By law, sellers of used vehicles must remove inspection stickers prior to transferring the vehicle to the new owner. Motor vehicle inspection stickers are not transferable to a new owner. When you buy a used car, you must bring the car to a licensed Massachusetts Inspection Station within seven days of registering it. In order to be protected by the Lemon Aid Law, however, you will need to have it inspected within seven days of purchase. For your own protection, do not allow the dealer to do the inspection for you.
Posted by: yutyut1
540 CMR 4.03 states " Every owner or person in control of a motor vehicle which is newly acquired in the Commonwealth shall submit such a motor vehicle for a required inspection within seven days of the date on which the motor vehicle is registered to said owner in the Commonwealth."
Maybe the way around this is to cite the operator under the CMR NOT 90-20.......Maybe that would work......Just a thought.
I sincerely hope that this get appealed.
Posted by: csauce777
I agree with the above posts, but I think the thing killing them is the entering the vehicle to remove the inspection sticker. Then you happen to see the knife and go from there. While it was a good observation, I think the court is indirectly questioning the officers actual reasons for entering the vehicle. Was it to remove the inspection sticker, or to get a better look around the car? While this kind of thing is routine when your looking for something good on car stops, this judge obviously doesnt like the fishing expedition.
ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops
About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.
The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.
The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.
The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.
The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.
MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)
ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops