Commonwealth v. Gomes
458 Mass. 1017
| Mass. | 2010Background
- May 24, 2006, dispatch reported a man with a gun on Hazard Street; suspect described as black male in gray shirt outside a green Honda.
- Officer Oliveira arrived within ~3 minutes, ordered the driver (defendant) out of the car, and conducted a patfrisk after the defendant said a weapon was in the car.
- Another officer located a gun under the front passenger seat.
- Judge denied the suppression motion; court suppressed the evidence on Fourth Amendment and art. 14 grounds.
- Motion to suppress relied on anonymous 911 tip; the area was described as high gang activity; no further corroboration or reliability evidence presented at suppression hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop and frisk based on anonymous 911 tip violated the Fourth Amendment/art. 14 | Commonwealth asserts reliable tip supports stop and frisk | Defendant contends no reliability or basis for suspicion from tip | Yes, suppression required |
| Whether tip’s reliability and corroboration were sufficient | Commonwealth argues some corroboration from location and description | Defendant argues lack of caller reliability and verifiability | No sufficient reliability; tip insufficient to justify stop and frisk |
| Whether there was any imminent threat to public safety justifying the stop | Commonwealth relies on gun report to justify danger | No evidence of firing, handling, or imminent danger | No imminent threat; stop unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2000) (anonymous tips require reliability for reasonable suspicion absent extraordinary danger)
- Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385 (Mass. 2010) (recording of 911 call matters for assessing caller knowledge and credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 (Mass. 1996) (imminent threat exception to anonymous-tip stop varies by evidence of danger)
- Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. 238 (Mass. 2010) (recordings can aid reliability assessment; excited utterances context relevant)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 791 (Mass. 2009) (extension of ruling on suppression motion and evidentiary standards)