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 run out. In Commonwealth v. Steward, No. 25-P-0015 (Mass. App. Ct. July 23, 2026), the court ordered the suppression of the drugs and cash that the prolonged stop produced. The decision was issued under Appeals Court Rule 23.0 and is not binding precedent, but it may be cited for its persuasive value, and it applies settled Supreme Judicial Court authority in a fact pattern that recurs in drug prosecutions across the district courts.

The Charges and the Procedural Path

The defendant was charged with possession of a class A controlled substance with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (a), and 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, and the Appeals Court reversed. That procedural path is worth noting on its own: a denied motion to suppress is not the end of the issue, because a single justice may allow an interlocutory appeal before trial.

The Legal Framework for a Traffic Stop

The controlling principles are established. 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). Otherwise, 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 more: 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. The decisive point came next. Neither the patfrisk nor the protective search revealed weapons or contraband, and the defendant was 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, and there was no reason to prolong the interaction.

What remained was 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 those facts did not amount to probable cause, and 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 that point had to be suppressed.

Two footnotes deserve attention. The court declined to consider an unsubstantiated tip about drug activity, agreeing with the motion judge that the record contained no evidence about it. And although the body-worn camera footage did not show the corner-cut baggie, the motion judge credited the detective’s testimony on the point, and the appellate court accepted that finding. The lesson for the defense is to obtain and review the body-worn camera footage in every case, because appellate courts review video evidence de novo when findings rest on it. 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, and the suppression motion is often the whole defense. This decision confirms the sequence a judge must examine: the justification for the stop, the justification for any exit order and patfrisk, and then, separately, whether anything discovered before the frisk came up empty supplied probable cause to keep going. Items that feel incriminating in the aggregate, a baggie corner, cash, nervousness, do not necessarily add up to probable cause, and the Commonwealth in this case conceded they did not. The rules governing when officers may search a vehicle at all are treated in Can Police Search My Car in Massachusetts Without a Warrant?, and the broader role of suppression in drug crime defense is treated in How Massachusetts Drug Cases Are Won.

The Bottom Line for a Pending Case

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