Commonwealth v. Meneus
476 Mass. 231
Mass.2017Background
- Late evening report that a gunshot struck Debra Santos's car; Santos told police she then saw a group of "young black males" run into the Washington Elms courtyard but gave no further identifying details.
- Officers Munro and Porter saw a nearby group matching that general description and approached them; the encounter began as conversational and the group answered questions about the shooting.
- Police asked permission to pat-frisk the group for officer safety; some members reluctantly complied, the defendant did not indicate consent and became argumentative.
- As the defendant attempted to walk away to avoid the pat-frisk, an officer moved toward him and pursued him when he began to run; officers chased, ordered him to stop, and ultimately caught him after Santos briefly grabbed his clothing.
- After officers brought the defendant to the ground, they discovered a firearm beneath his body. The defendant moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial judge denied suppression, conviction followed, Appeals Court affirmed, and SJC granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Meneus's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether/when a seizure occurred | Seizure occurred when officers commanded defendant to stop during chase | Seizure occurred earlier when officer advanced to effect a pat-frisk, turning a consensual encounter into nonconsensual | Seizure occurred when officer advanced to prevent defendant leaving to avoid pat-frisk (i.e., before formal stop) |
| Whether police had reasonable suspicion to seize | General description, proximity in time/place to reported shooting, high-crime area, defendant's flight, and officer safety justified seizure | Description was too general; no identification by witness; no suspicious conduct; backing away/flight was lawful refusal to submit to pat-frisk | No reasonable suspicion existed under totality of facts; seizure not justified |
| Whether a public-safety exception allowed a frisk absent reasonable suspicion | The report of shots fired (imminent public danger) permitted escalated inquiry or frisk | Public-safety does not permit escalating a consensual encounter into a frisk absent reasonable suspicion | Court rejects any categorical public-safety exception; public-safety is a factor but cannot replace reasonable suspicion requirement |
| Whether defendant's movement/flight justified detention | Flight from scene after pat-frisk began indicated involvement and supported detention | Defendant was walking away to avoid an unconstitutional pat-frisk; refusal to answer or walk away cannot supply reasonable suspicion | Defendant's backing away to avoid pat-frisk did not supply reasonable suspicion; flight here is not probative because seizure occurred when officers impeded his departure |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 457 Mass. 14 (discussion of limits on escalating consensual encounters)
- Commonwealth v. Narcisse, 457 Mass. 1 (police may not convert consensual encounter into protective frisk without reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Barros, 435 Mass. 171 (test for seizure: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. 238 (reasonable suspicion requires totality of circumstances; nature of crime relevant but not dispositive)
- Commonwealth v. Warren, 475 Mass. 530 (refusal to speak or walk away cannot alone justify seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Lopes, 455 Mass. 147 (general descriptions are often insufficient for individualized suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541 (earlier stop-and-frisk jurisprudence referenced and subsequently limited)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 671 (Appeals Court decision on public-safety justification for frisk, discussed and limited by SJC)
- Commonwealth v. Melo, 472 Mass. 278 (standard for supplementing motion-hearing record)