Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell
472 Mass. 429
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Around 12:37 a.m., two Boston police officers in an unmarked car observed the defendant, a Black male, walking on Norfolk Avenue; one officer saw the defendant's right hand in his pants at the waist/crotch area.
- Officers twice asked to speak with the defendant; he looked away, quickened his pace, and kept his hand in his pants.
- When the officers exited the vehicle and one loudly called "Wait a minute," the defendant began running; an officer chased and apprehended him ~20–30 seconds later, and a handgun fell from the defendant's pants.
- Defendant moved to suppress all evidence from the encounter; the motion judge found only certain testimony credible and allowed the motion.
- The Appeals Court reversed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and affirmed the motion judge, holding the judge’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and did not support reasonable suspicion at the moment of seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Jones-Pannell's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant was "seized" when officer yelled and began pursuit, or only upon physical apprehension | Not seized until physically caught; flight began before police action, so no seizure at the yell | Seized when officer loudly commanded "Wait" and gave chase, making a reasonable person not feel free to leave | Seized at the officer's loud command and pursuit; judge's finding that pursuit created seizure affirmed |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify stop/frisk at the moment of seizure | Flight + hand in pants + officer training + neighborhood context supplied reasonable suspicion | Flight and hand placement alone, absent high-crime area or other corroborating facts, were insufficient | No reasonable suspicion: flight and hand-in-pants, without more, did not establish objective reasonable suspicion |
| Whether the neighborhood qualified as a "high-crime area," enhancing suspicion | Officer testimony about prior shootings/gang presence made it a high-crime area supporting suspicion | Judge found Norfolk Ave between streets in question was not a high-crime area; Commonwealth's general references insufficient | Judge’s finding that the location was not a high-crime area was not clearly erroneous; characterization requires specific underlying facts |
| Whether appellate court may supplement motion judge’s findings with uncredited/unfound testimony to overturn suppression | Urged supplementation of the judge's findings (e.g., officer training, crime in area) to justify stop | Motion judge limited credit to specific testimony; appellate supplementation would amount to improper factfinding | Appellate courts may not supplement where judge expressly credited only certain testimony; cannot make independent fact findings to reverse motion judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barros, 435 Mass. 171 (Mass. 2001) (identifies factors for when pursuit/command effect a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (Mass. 2011) (flight not prompted by police may preclude seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 454 Mass. 159 (Mass. 2009) (use caution when treating an area as a high-crime area; require specific facts)
- Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., 448 Mass. 334 (Mass. 2007) (limits and standards for appellate supplementation of motion judge's findings)
- Commonwealth v. Jessup, 471 Mass. 121 (Mass. 2015) (appellate supplementation permitted only when undisputed facts do not detract from judge's findings)
- Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 449 Mass. 367 (Mass. 2007) (defines seizure: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)