When a Traffic Stop Must End: Commonwealth v. Steward and the Limits of Prolonged Detention

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has reversed the denial of a motion to suppress in a District Court drug case, holding that a detective unlawfully prolonged a traffic stop after the justification for the stop had ended. In Commonwealth v. Steward, No. 25-P-15 (Mass. App. Ct. July 23, 2026), the court ordered the suppression of the drugs and cash obtained during the prolonged stop.

The decision was issued under Appeals Court Rule 23.0 and is not binding precedent, but it may be cited for its persuasive value. The Appeals Court applied settled Supreme Judicial Court authority to a fact pattern that recurs in drug prosecutions across the district courts.

The Charges and the Procedural History

The defendant was charged with possession of a class A controlled substance with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (a). The defendant was also charged with possession of a class B controlled substance with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (a). He moved to suppress the physical evidence, several plastic baggies containing white substances and $1,240 in currency.

A District Court judge denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the defendant to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The Appeals Court reversed the denial of the motion. Before trial, a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court may allow an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress.

The Legal Framework for a Traffic Stop

A routine traffic stop may not last longer than reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Commonwealth v. Cordero, 477 Mass. 237, 241 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Amado, 474 Mass. 147, 151 (2016). The scope of a stop may extend beyond its initial purpose only if the officer is confronted with facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that further criminal conduct is afoot. Commonwealth v. Tavares, 482 Mass. 694, 703 (2019).

Without reasonable suspicion of further criminal conduct, police authority to seize an individual ends when the tasks tied to the traffic infraction are completed, or reasonably should have been completed. Commonwealth v. Soriano-Lara, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 525, 528 (2021). A patfrisk requires reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, but a search of the person requires probable cause and an exception to the warrant requirement. Commonwealth v. Villagran, 477 Mass. 711, 717 (2017).

The Court’s Analysis

The panel assumed, without deciding, that the detective was justified in issuing the exit order, in patfrisking the defendant, and in conducting a protective search of the front passenger area of the truck. Neither the patfrisk nor the protective search revealed weapons or contraband. The defendant was also no longer nervous. At that moment, the court held, any reasonable suspicion and any concern for officer safety dissipated. Commonwealth v. Douglas, 472 Mass. 439, 443 (2015). The defendant was handcuffed and seated on the grass. There was no reason to prolong the interaction.

The remaining facts were the detective’s observation of a corner-cut plastic bag on the passenger seat and the fact that the defendant had currency in his pocket. The Commonwealth conceded that the corner-cut bag and the currency did not amount to probable cause. The panel agreed, citing Commonwealth v. Garcia, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 650 (1993).

Without probable cause, the detective was required to end his inquiry and complete the traffic stop. He was not permitted to return to his cruiser to check the defendant’s record and then present the defendant with a choice between handing over any drugs and waiting for a dog sniff. All physical evidence obtained after the point at which the detective should have completed the traffic stop had to be suppressed.

The court addressed two further points in footnotes. The court declined to consider an unsubstantiated tip about drug activity, agreeing with the motion judge that the record contained no evidence about it. The body-worn camera footage did not show the corner-cut baggie. The motion judge nevertheless credited the detective’s testimony about the baggie.

The Appeals Court accepted the motion judge’s finding. The defense should obtain and review the body-worn camera footage in every case, because appellate courts review video evidence de novo when the motion judge’s findings are based on the video. Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645, 656 (2018).

The Plain Feel Doctrine and the Currency

The panel also held that the detective was not permitted to remove currency from the defendant’s pockets during the frisk. Under the plain feel doctrine, an officer conducting a lawful patfrisk may seize contraband only when the object’s contour or mass makes its identity as contraband immediately apparent. Commonwealth v. Amado, 474 Mass. 147, 153 (2016). Cash is not contraband, so the court excluded the amount of currency from its probable cause analysis entirely.

What the Decision Means for a Pending Drug Case

Most district court drug prosecutions begin with a motor vehicle stop. In those cases, the defense often consists entirely of the suppression motion. The Appeals Court confirmed the sequence a judge must examine. The judge examines the justification for the stop and the justification for any exit order and patfrisk.

The judge then decides separately whether anything discovered by the time the frisk found nothing supplied probable cause to continue the detention. Facts that seem incriminating in the aggregate, such as a baggie corner, cash, and nervousness, do not necessarily amount to probable cause. In this case, the Commonwealth conceded that those facts did not amount to probable cause.

The rules governing when officers may search a vehicle at all are treated in Can Police Search My Car in Massachusetts Without a Warrant? The broader role of suppression in drug crime defense is treated in How Massachusetts Drug Cases Are Defended: Suppression and Trial Evidence.

Summary for a Person With a Pending Case

The law requires the police to complete the purpose of a traffic stop and no more, unless specific facts justify each additional step. The detention must end when a patfrisk and a protective search produce nothing. Anyone charged with drug offenses after a motor vehicle stop should have the entire sequence of the stop reviewed against the rules for traffic stops, minute by minute and with the body-worn camera footage, before deciding how to proceed. Serpa Law Office litigates suppression motions in drug cases throughout the district courts of Greater Boston.