Commonwealth v. Chamberlin
45 N.E.3d 900
Mass.2016Background
- Sept. 24, 2007: three masked men assaulted and shot victim Alberto; victim identified a caller known as “Marco.”
- Detective Ferreira used a police search tool to link the identified number to defendant Chamberlin and located his name/address.
- On Sept. 26, 2007 Ferreira phoned the carrier’s law‑enforcement relations rep, provided an investigation synopsis, promised a subpoena within 48 hours, and later sent a follow‑up letter requesting subscriber info and a recent call log.
- The carrier voluntarily sent subscriber data and a two‑week call log showing multiple calls between the defendant’s number and the victim; those records were used in a subsequent search warrant affidavit and at trial.
- Defendant moved to suppress the carrier records and resultant physical evidence arguing the government failed to follow G. L. c. 271, § 17B; trial and Appeals Court denied suppression; SJC granted review limited to the phone‑records issue.
- SJC held § 17B (as written in 2007) did not bar informal requests to carriers, but carriers’ voluntary disclosures must comply with the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA); the court found the carrier’s disclosure fit the SCA exigent‑circumstances exception and affirmed convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 271, § 17B precluded informal requests to carriers for customer records | Commonwealth: §17B provides one statutory tool but does not preclude other means | Chamberlin: §17B established the required minimum formal process — government must use it | Held: §17B (2007 text) did not bar informal requests; its use of “may” shows permissive, not exclusive, procedure |
| Whether the carrier’s voluntary disclosure violated the federal Stored Communications Act | Commonwealth: disclosure met an SCA exception (exigent circumstances) | Chamberlin: carrier improperly disclosed records absent formal process under §17B and SCA | Held: Disclosure fell within SCA exigent‑circumstances exception (good‑faith belief of danger), so no SCA violation |
| Whether suppression of records and derivative evidence was required | Commonwealth: suppression not required because disclosure lawful under SCA and §17B did not prohibit the method used | Chamberlin: evidence should be suppressed as obtained in violation of state statute and SCA | Held: Motions to suppress properly denied; convictions affirmed |
| Relevance of 2008 amendment to §17B to interpret 2007 statute | Commonwealth: 2008 amendment does not retroactively define 2007 law | Chamberlin: 2008 amendment clarifies that formal process is required | Held: Court refused to read 2008 amendment into 2007 statute; legislative change likely substantive, not mere clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Feodoroff, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (describing §17B as an investigatory tool)
- Commonwealth v. Vinnie, 428 Mass. 161 (discussing limits on prosecutor use of administrative subpoenas under §17B)
- Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624 (standard of review for suppression findings)
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (SCA purpose to protect electronic‑communications privacy)
- Telecommunications Regulatory Bd. of P.R. v. CTIA‑Wireless Ass'n, 752 F.3d 60 (First Cir.) (SCA preemption of state statute requiring disclosure without SCA compliance)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in telephone subscriber numbers)