24-P-335 COMMONWEALTH v. ERIC CARATTINI (And a Consolidated Case).

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-331
24-P-335

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

ERIC CARATTINI (and a consolidated case1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The issue presented in these two consolidated interlocutory

appeals is whether the observation of an exchange of currency

for a small item between an unidentified man and the defendant,

Jose Mendez,2 by a police officer experienced in narcotics

investigations in an area described as an "open-air market" for

illegal drug activity, provided the officer with probable cause

to believe a drug transaction had occurred. Here, the officer

who witnessed the exchange believed that probable cause existed.

1 Commonwealth vs. Jose Mendez, case no. 24-P-335.

2The Commonwealth refers to the defendants' names as they
appear in the indictments, as do we. See Commonwealth v.
Leoner-Aguirre, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 581, 581 n.1 (2018).
Consequently, he and four police officers approached the car

Mendez was driving and ordered him out of the vehicle. The exit

order extended to the front seat passenger, codefendant Eric

Carattini. Ultimately, the police recovered a firearm from

Mendez's front shirt pocket, as well as drugs and firearms from

the car.

The defendants were arrested and charged with various

firearm and drug offenses.3 They each filed a motion to suppress

3 Carattini was charged with trafficking in more than ten
grams of fentanyl, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (c1/2); unlawful
possession with intent to distribute heroin, G. L. c. 94C, § 32
(a); unlawful possession with intent to distribute oxycodone,
G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (a); illegal possession of a firearm, G. L.
c. 269, § 10 (a); unlawful possession of a loaded firearm,
G. L. c. 269, § 10 (n); unlawful possession of ammunition
without a firearm identification (FID) card, G. L. c. 269, § 10
(h) (1); unlawful possession of a large capacity weapon, G. L.
c. 269, § 10 (m); and possession of a large capacity firearm
during the commission of a felony, G. L. c. 265, § 18B.
Mendez was charged with trafficking in more than ten grams
of fentanyl, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (c1/2); unlawful possession of
a large capacity weapon, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); possession of a
large capacity firearm during the commission of a felony, G. L.
c. 265, § 18B; two counts of unlawful possession of a loaded
firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (n); possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony, G. L. c. 265, § 18B; unlawful
possession with intent to distribute heroin, subsequent offense,
G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (b); two counts of illegal possession of a
firearm with one prior violent crime or serious drug offense,
G. L. c. 269, § 10G (a); two counts of unlawful possession of
ammunition without an FID card with one prior violent crime or
serious drug offense, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h); and unlawful
possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, subsequent
offense, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (b).

2
all evidence found during the encounter, claiming that they were

unlawfully seized when five officers approached their car

without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity, and that the exit order was invalid. Mendez further

claimed that the police pat frisked him without reason to

believe that he was armed and dangerous. Following an

evidentiary hearing, a judge of the Superior Court concluded

that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity, and he allowed the motions to suppress.4 The

Commonwealth's application for leave to file an interlocutory

appeal was allowed by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial

Court, who reported the matter to this court. For the reasons

that follow, we now reverse.

Background. We summarize the relevant facts from the

judge's findings on the motions to suppress, supplemented where

appropriate by uncontroverted testimony that the judge

explicitly or implicitly credited. See Commonwealth v. Jones-

Pannell, 472 Mass. 429, 431 (2015).

At approximately 2:30 P.M. on October 22, 2019, Detective

William Delgado and members of the Western Massachusetts Gang

Task Force (task force) were doing "spot check surveillance" in

4 In light of his conclusion, the judge did not reach the
issues whether the exit order or patfrisk were justified.

3
the area of Lyman and Chestnut Streets in the town of Holyoke.

Detective Delgado, who at the time had been a police officer

with the Holyoke police department for twenty-one years and had

made "hundreds of narcotics arrests in the city," recently had

received complaints of increased illegal narcotics activity at

that location. During his direct testimony, Detective Delgado

adopted the prosecutor's description of the area as an "open-air

market" for drug sales.

Detective Delgado parked on Chestnut Street, "specifically"

to check for narcotics activity. He observed a man, whom he did

not recognize and who was never identified, walk up to the

driver's side of a white Honda Pilot. The man had a brief

conversation with the driver, Mendez. Detective Delgado, who

was approximately fifty to sixty feet away, saw the man give

Mendez money in exchange for a small item. Although Detective

Delgado saw the money, he could not identify the item that was

exchanged. The man then walked away out of view and the Honda

departed.

Detective Delgado believed that he had observed a narcotics

transaction and began to follow Mendez. He was in plain clothes

and in an unmarked police vehicle with two other members of the

task force. Mendez drove about three and a half blocks before

parking lawfully. Detective Delgado pulled in behind the Honda,

4
and all three officers approached the car. Detective Delgado

and one officer went to the driver's side while a third officer

went to the passenger's side. Within "seconds," two additional

officers, who also were driving an unmarked vehicle, arrived and

joined the officer on the passenger's side of the car.

Detective Delgado identified himself to Mendez. At the same

time, he recognized Carattini from a prior homicide

investigation and a recent social media post on Facebook in

which Carattini was holding a firearm. Detective Delgado

ordered the defendants out of the car and opened the driver's

side door. Mendez closed the door and refused to exit.

Detective Delgado opened the door again and Mendez was forced

out of the car, put on the ground, and handcuffed. The officers

pat frisked Mendez and found a firearm in his front shirt

pocket. Meanwhile, Carattini cooperated with the officers and

got out of the car. He too was handcuffed and detained while

the police searched the car and found, among other items,

firearms, "heroin, oxycodone pills, a scale, [and] U.S.

currency."

As noted, the judge allowed the defendants' motions to

suppress. Based on the facts we have summarized, he concluded

that the police lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

at the time the defendants were seized, which the judge

5
determined occurred when five police officers approached (and

surrounded) Mendez's car.

Discussion. We accept the judge's factual findings unless

they are clearly erroneous. See Commonwealth v. Welch, 420

Mass. 646, 651 (1995). However, we "make an independent

determination of the correctness of the judge's application of

constitutional principles to the facts." Commonwealth v.

Mercado, 422 Mass. 367, 369 (1996). In this case, none of the

material facts are in dispute, but the judge's application of

the law to those facts was incorrect.5

In reaching his conclusion, the judge relied primarily on

Commonwealth v. Ellis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 476 (1981), and

Commonwealth v. Clark, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 39 (2005). He reasoned

that the observation of an exchange between two unknown men (a

pedestrian and the driver of a car) of a small object for money

on a public street amounted to no more than a "hunch" that a

5 We note that in both briefs the Commonwealth argues only
that the judge erred by concluding that the police lacked
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and it requests that
the case be remanded for additional findings on the validity of
the exit order and the patfrisk of Mendez. However, at the
hearing on the defendants' motions to suppress, the Commonwealth
asserted that Detective Delgado's observations established
probable cause to stop, search, and arrest both defendants.
When asked during oral argument whether the Commonwealth still
maintained that there was probable cause to arrest the
defendants, the appellate prosecutor responded affirmatively.

6
crime had been committed. The facts in these two cases are

distinguishable from the facts present here.

In Ellis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. at 477, we concluded that a

police officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

to justify the stop of a motor vehicle where he had observed

three persons conversing through the window of a car in a

parking lot, and then saw one of them hand over what the officer

believed to be money in exchange for an unidentified item.

There was no evidence, as there is here, that the exchange

occurred in an area known for drug activity, or that the

observing police officer had special experience in the

investigation of narcotics sales.

In Clark, 65 Mass. App. Ct. at 44-45, we concluded that a

police officer had no legally sufficient basis for stopping the

defendant's motor vehicle based on his observation of the

defendant, who was standing by his car in a "high drug area,"

handing an item to a man whom the officer knew to be a bartender

from another section of the town, in exchange for money. While

there was evidence that the location of the exchange was known

for drug activity, there was no suggestion, as there is here, of

a direct connection between the specific location and drug

activity. See id. In other words, the location where the

exchange at issue occurred in this case was not simply a "high

7
drug area." Rather, Detective Delgado and the other task force

agents were at that location specifically to conduct

surveillance as a result of recent complaints about illegal drug

activity. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 448,

452-453 & n.7 (2015) (testimony about recent increase in drug

activity in area where alleged drug transaction occurred deemed

to be significant). See also Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass.

703, 704 (1998) (receipt of numerous complaints from neighbors

about drug dealing at particular intersection contributed to

finding of probable cause). In addition, while the officer in

Clark, supra at 40, had been involved in at least one hundred

drug arrests during his eight-year tenure as an officer, he did

not have Detective Delgado's level of expertise in narcotics

investigations.

Although this case is close, in our view, the facts compare

favorably with those in Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238,

241 (1992), where the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that

there was probable cause to believe a drug transaction had

occurred based on a similar scenario. In that case, the police

observed the defendant receive an item from a person who was

sitting with him on a porch and then exchange it for money with

a person who arrived at their location in a taxicab. See id. at

239-240. The court considered the following four factors in

8
reaching its conclusion: (1) "the unusual nature of the

transaction"; (2) "the furtive actions of the participants"; (3)

"the encounter occur[ed] in a place known to the police as a

place of high incidence of drug traffic"; and (4) "an

experienced officer on the scene, who had made numerous drug

arrests in the neighborhood, considered the event as revealing a

drug sale." Id. at 241.

The facts in this case, as found by the judge, satisfy each

factor considered by the court in Santaliz. The transaction was

unusual in that it was quick, the item exchanged between the

defendant and the unidentified man was small, and as soon as the

exchange was made, the man walked away, and the defendant drove

off. Objectively, this conduct also could be viewed as

"furtive." See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 87 Mass. App. Ct. at

453 n.5. As previously noted, the area was not only known for

illegal drug activity, but Detective Delgado had received

reports of an increase in drug sales where the exchange

occurred. Lastly, there is no dispute that Detective Delgado

was experienced in street-level drug transactions. In

concluding that the facts known to Detective Delgado established

probable cause to believe a drug transaction had occurred, we

acknowledge that there could have been an innocent explanation

for the exchange. However, Detective Delgado "was entitled to

9
view [the transaction] through the lens of his specialized

training and experience and conclude that more than mere

coincidence was involved, and that he had witnessed a drug

transaction." Commonwealth v. Freeman, supra at 454.

For these reasons, the order allowing the defendants'

motions to suppress is reversed.6

So ordered.

By the Court (Vuono, Meade &
Hand, JJ.7),

Clerk

Entered: March 7, 2025.

6 Given our conclusion that the police had probable cause to
arrest Mendez, we need not reach the question whether the
defendants were seized at the time the officers approached
Mendez's car. Nor do we need to address the validity of the
exit order as to Mendez or the patfrisk. Furthermore, once
Mendez was lawfully stopped and Detective Delgado recognized
Carattini, the exit order as to Carattini was justified. He was
then lawfully arrested following the search of the car.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

10