Commonwealth v. Raymond J. Verrier: Appeals Court Clarifies Probable Cause Standard for Drug-Related Protective Custody
On September 8, 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision in Commonwealth v. Raymond J. Verrier (24-P-446), addressing the legal threshold required for police to place someone into protective custody under the Drug Rehabilitation Law (G.L. c. 111E, § 9A)—and the consequences when evidence of guns and drugs is found during that custody.
The ruling clarifies that police must have probable cause, not merely reasonable suspicion, to believe that a person is incapacitated by drugs before they can be taken into protective custody. And it held that Chelsea police had probable cause in this case—meaning the firearm and drugs they found on Verrier were admissible.
This post explains the facts, legal issues, and broader implications of Verrier for anyone facing firearms or drug charges after a protective custody encounter in Massachusetts.
Factual Background: A Pat-Frisk During Protective Custody Leads to Gun and Drug Charges
The Police Encounter
On a Saturday in March 2022, Chelsea police officer Timothy McCarthy received a radio call about “a man who appeared to be needing help because he was either drunk or under the influence of drugs” at a busy shopping plaza11-060-25.
Arriving in a marked cruiser and uniform, McCarthy immediately saw Verrier: swaying on the sidewalk in the rain, staring up at the sky with his eyes closed, knees buckling, appearing unsteady and in need of help. Cars and pedestrians were passing close by, and McCarthy feared Verrier might fall into traffic.
When McCarthy approached, Verrier did not notice until radio chatter caught his attention. He was slurring his speech, swaying, had pinpoint pupils, and appeared unsteady. McCarthy saw a white stain on his pants and a dark substance on his nostrils, which he believed indicated opiate use. Verrier said he had been awake for five days and taken Ambien and Tylenol PM but denied drug or alcohol use—contradicting McCarthy’s observations11-060-25.
Verrier also admitted he had previously overdosed, had used fentanyl and methamphetamine, had just gotten out of jail, and that his drug tolerance was lower than before. Initially agreeing to go to the hospital, he later tried to leave. McCarthy told him he was not under arrest but could not leave because he was being placed in protective custody for medical evaluation.
The Pat-Frisk and Arrest
Before EMTs arrived, McCarthy decided to pat-frisk Verrier for safety, knowing people who use narcotics sometimes carry sharps or weapons. Verrier did not consent. McCarthy immediately felt and removed a loaded firearm from Verrier’s waistband; Verrier admitted he had no license to carry. McCarthy arrested him and, during a search incident to arrest, found suspected drugs hidden in Verrier’s groin area11-060-25.
Procedural History: Motion to Suppress and Conditional Guilty Plea
Verrier was charged with:
Carrying a firearm without a license (G.L. c. 269, § 10(a))
Possession of ammunition without an FID card (G.L. c. 269, § 10(h)(1))
Defacing the serial number on a firearm (G.L. c. 269, § 11C)
Possession of Class B and Class E drugs11-060-25
He moved to suppress the gun and drugs, arguing that the police lacked sufficient cause to place him in protective custody, so the pat-frisk and arrest were unlawful.
The District Court denied the motion, finding McCarthy had an “objectively reasonable belief that the defendant’s safety and well-being were at risk.” Verrier then entered conditional guilty pleas to the three firearms charges, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling (per Commonwealth v. Gomez, 480 Mass. 240 (2018)). The drugs charges were disposed of separately.
The sole issue on appeal was whether the officer had the proper legal basis to place Verrier in protective custody under the Drug Rehabilitation Law.
Legal Framework: Protective Custody Under G.L. c. 111E, § 9A
Massachusetts law allows police to take people who appear dangerously impaired by controlled substances into protective custody to get immediate medical care. The key statute is G.L. c. 111E, § 9A, part of the Drug Rehabilitation Law11-060-25.
Under § 9A:
“Any person who is incapacitated may be placed into protective custody by a police officer without the person's consent for the purpose of immediately transporting the person to an acute care hospital…or otherwise immediately obtaining appropriate emergency medical treatment.”
“Incapacitated” means someone who, due to drug consumption, is:
unconscious,
in need of medical attention,
likely to suffer or cause physical harm or property damage, or
disorderly.
Police may also search the person for weapons if they reasonably believe there may be a risk to safety.
The Parallel Alcohol Statute and the O’Brien Rule
Massachusetts has a parallel law for people incapacitated by alcohol—the Alcohol Treatment and Rehabilitation Law (G.L. c. 111B).
In Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 434 Mass. 615 (2001), the Supreme Judicial Court held that to place someone in protective custody under the alcohol statute, officers must have probable cause to believe the person is incapacitated—not merely reasonable suspicion11-060-25.
The Appeals Court’s Holding: Probable Cause Standard Applies to Drug-Based Custody Too
The Appeals Court, in an opinion by Justice Rubin, held that the same probable cause standard applies under the Drug Rehabilitation Law11-060-25.
It reasoned that:
The definitions of “incapacitated” under the drug and alcohol statutes are materially identical, except for the substance involved.
The key liberty intrusion—nonconsensual detention—is the same under both statutes.
The fact that the alcohol law allows up to 12 hours of custody at a police station while the drug law allows only transport to a hospital does not lower the constitutional standard.
Therefore, police must have probable cause to believe a person is incapacitated by drugs before taking them into protective custody under G.L. c. 111E, § 9A.
Application: There Was Probable Cause to Place Verrier in Custody
The Court then applied the probable cause standard to McCarthy’s observations. Under Commonwealth v. Privette, 491 Mass. 501, 530 (2023), courts look at the “entire set of facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the police.”
Here, probable cause existed because:
Verrier was visibly swaying, unstable, and staring blankly in the rain on a busy sidewalk.
He had pinpoint pupils, slurred speech, and stains on his clothes and nostrils suggesting drug use.
He said he had not slept for five days, had taken sedating medications, had overdosed before, had used fentanyl and methamphetamine, had just gotten out of jail, and had lower tolerance.
He initially agreed to hospital transport but then tried to leave despite appearing impaired11-060-2511-060-25.
Taken together, these facts would lead a reasonable officer to believe he was incapacitated and in need of emergency care.
Because probable cause existed, the protective custody was lawful—and therefore the pat-frisk that revealed the gun, and the search incident to arrest that revealed the drugs, were also lawful.
The Appeals Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and upheld Verrier’s convictions11-060-25.
Key Takeaways for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers
1. Probable Cause Required—Not Just Reasonable Suspicion
The decision eliminates ambiguity: police must have probable cause to place someone in drug-related protective custody. This raises the standard and offers a potential suppression argument in close cases where officers acted on hunches or minimal observations.
2. Protective Custody Counts as a Seizure
The Court confirmed that protective custody is a nonconsensual detention implicating Fourth Amendment rights. Labels don’t matter; the level of liberty intrusion does. That means defense counsel can challenge protective custody the same way they challenge stops and arrests.
3. Pat-Frisks Must Be Justified by Safety Concerns
Once someone is lawfully in protective custody, officers may pat-frisk only if they reasonably believe there’s a safety risk. Here, McCarthy justified it based on the general risk of sharps or weapons on drug users. Defense attorneys should probe whether safety concerns were truly individualized.
4. Admissions About Drug Use Can Be Probable Cause
Verrier’s statements about overdosing, past fentanyl and meth use, and low tolerance significantly contributed to probable cause. This shows why Miranda and voluntariness arguments may be important even in seemingly noncriminal “welfare” encounters.
5. Expect More Litigation Around § 9A Encounters
The ruling will likely embolden police to use § 9A more often, especially in public settings. Defense lawyers should scrutinize the factual basis for alleged incapacitation, especially if the client was actually coherent, ambulatory, and not endangering anyone.
Practical Advice for Clients: What This Means If You’re Stopped While Impaired
The Verrier case underscores that if police believe you are dangerously impaired by drugs—even without proof of actual crime—they can:
Detain you without your consent
Place you in protective custody
Pat-frisk you for weapons
Transport you to a hospital
If they find guns or drugs in the process, you can be arrested and prosecuted.
However, if they lacked probable cause that you were incapacitated, a skilled criminal defense lawyer may be able to suppress the evidence and get your charges dismissed.
Our Firm’s Experience: Defending Gun and Drug Cases from Protective Custody Encounters
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our Brockton-based defense team has defended countless clients against serious firearms and drug charges in Massachusetts courts. We are well-versed in:
Litigating motions to suppress evidence found during protective custody
Challenging probable cause findings under G.L. c. 111E, § 9A
Cross-examining officers on their observations and training
Highlighting inconsistencies between police reports, bodycam footage, and courtroom testimony
We know how to build strong constitutional arguments to protect your rights when police stretch the limits of their authority.
Conclusion
The Massachusetts Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Raymond J. Verrier is a major clarification of the law: probable cause is required to place someone in protective custody under the Drug Rehabilitation Law.
Because Officer McCarthy had probable cause to believe Verrier was incapacitated, the protective custody, pat-frisk, and resulting gun and drug seizures were upheld.
This case sends a clear message that while courts will uphold protective custody when justified, they will scrutinize the facts. For defendants, that means having a skilled criminal defense lawyer is crucial to challenge the basis for such encounters and suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Consult a qualified Massachusetts defense attorney for advice about your situation.