Whether the search-incident-to-arrest exception from Arizona v. Gant applies to searches of containers in buildings or only in automobiles

1. With respect to the search -incident -to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution , this Court held in Arizona v. Gant that the exception applies only if the container searched is within the arrestee’s reach at the time of the search . Does Gant ’s limitation on the geographic scope of the exception apply to searches of containers found in buildings , or only to containers found in automobiles? iii II. LIST OF PROCEEDINGS 1. Massachusetts Superior Court, Hampden County , Docket Number 1979CR00433, Commonwealth v. Alexander Soto , August 14, 2023; 2. Massachusetts Appeals Court, Docket Number 2023 -P1, Commonwealth v. Alexander Soto, October 10, 2024 ; and 3. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Docket Number FAR -30092, Commonwealth v. Alexander Soto , February 21, 2025 . 1 III. OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW The decision by the Massachusetts Superior Court denying Petitioner's motion to suppress is unpublished . (App endix (“App.”) 14.) The decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court denying Petitioner’s direct appeal is reported as Commonwealth v. Alexander Soto , 245 N.E.3d 241 ( Massachsetts App. Ct. October 10, 2024) . (App. 2.) The denial by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) on February 21, 2025, of Petitioner’s request for Further Appellate Review (“FAR”) is unpublished. (App. 24.) IV. JURISDICTION The highest court of Massachusetts denied FAR on February 21, 2025 . (App. 24 .) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (a). V. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND RULES The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const., amend. IV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities o f citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 2 without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const., amend. XIV , § 1. Pleas Reserving Appellate Review . With the written agreement of the prosecutor, the defendant may tender a plea of guilty or an admission to sufficient facts while reserving the right to appeal any ruling or rulings that would, if reversed, render the Commonwealth's case not viable on one or more charges. The written agreement must specify the ruling or rulings that may be appealed, and must state that reversal of the ruling or rulings would render the Commonwealth's case not viable on one or more speci fied charges. The judge, in an exercise of discretion, may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or an admission to sufficient facts reserving the right to appeal. If the defendant prevails in whole or in part on appeal, the defendant may withdraw the guilty plea or the admission to sufficient facts on any of the specified charges. If the defendant withdraws the guilty plea or the admission to sufficient facts, the judge shall dismiss the complaint or indictment on those charges, unless the prosecutor shows good cause to do otherwise. The appeal shall be governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, provided that a notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of the acceptance of the plea. Mass. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(6). VI.