## Facts

- Brockton police received a call reporting a violent assault involving about ten people across the street from a pizza shop.
- State Trooper Francis Walls (plain clothes, unmarked car) arrived within minutes and approached a group of about ten men in the described location, an area he viewed as high crime.
- As Walls approached, the group looked at him; Roosevelt Wilson turned away, began walking off, and reached toward his waistband.
- Believing Wilson might be reaching for a weapon, Walls grabbed Wilson and conducted a patfrisk at the waistband.
- During the lawful patfrisk, Walls felt multiple small, hard objects through clothing and immediately recognized them as packaged marijuana (“dime bags”) based on experience.
- Walls seized the marijuana and arrested Wilson.
- Wilson was charged and convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and committing the offense within 1,000 feet of a school.

## Issues

1. Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Wilson and conduct a weapons patfrisk under the Fourth Amendment and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights art. 14.
2. Whether the seizure of marijuana during the patfrisk was unlawful because it exceeded the scope of a weapons frisk, and whether a “plain feel” doctrine is permissible under art. 14.
3. Whether challenged police and expert testimony was improperly admitted and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute and the school-zone element.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the stop and patfrisk were supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances (violent-dispatch report, matching group at location, high-crime context, and waistband-reaching gesture).
- The court held that art. 14 permits a “plain feel” doctrine: contraband may be seized during a lawful patfrisk when its incriminating nature is immediately apparent without additional manipulation.
- The court upheld admission of the challenged testimony, including expert opinion that packaging and related facts were consistent with intent to distribute.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support intent to distribute and proof that the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.

## Legal Principles

- A *Terry*-type stop requires reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts; a frisk additionally requires reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
- Reasonable suspicion is assessed under the totality of the circumstances; high-crime location is relevant but not alone sufficient.
- Under art. 14, the scope of a lawful patfrisk is not exceeded when an officer, during the frisk, immediately recognizes an object as contraband by touch and does not further manipulate it beyond what is necessary to determine whether it is a weapon.
- If identification of the object as contraband depends on squeezing, sliding, or other manipulation beyond a weapons frisk, seizure is unlawful.
- Expert testimony may be admitted to assist the jury on whether drug quantity, packaging, and related circumstances are consistent with intent to distribute.
- Convictions are upheld if, viewing the evidence most favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the stop, patfrisk, and seizure, holding that art. 14 allows seizure of contraband detected by “plain feel” during a lawful weapons frisk when the object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent without additional manipulation, and it affirmed the evidentiary rulings and sufficiency determinations supporting the drug and school-zone convictions.


Commonwealth v. Wilson, 441 Mass. 390, 805 N.E.2d 968 (Mass. 2004)