993 N.E.2d 715
Mass.2013Background
- Moody and Newman were indicted on multiple counts under G. L. c. 94C for involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy.
- Massachusetts warrants issued under c. 272, § 99 authorized interception of oral/wire communications on defendants’ cellular phones.
- Warrants sought to intercept calls and text messages; monitoring occurred for about one week.
- Defendants moved to suppress cellular calls and text messages; text messages were suppressed while calls were not.
- Question certified to the Appeals Court: whether c. 272, § 99 authorizes state interception of cellular calls and text messages.
- Court held that Massachusetts statute authorizes interception of both cellular calls and text messages and is not preempted by federal law; remanded for further action consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Massachusetts § 99 authorize interception of cellular calls and texts? | Moody argues § 99 does not cover cellular calls or texts. | Moody contends federal preemption leaves interception to federal law only. | Yes; § 99 covers both and is not preempted. |
| Is Massachusetts § 99 preempted by Title III/ECPA regarding cellular calls and texts? | Moody asserts Title III as amended by ECPA preempts state law. | State statute should be preempted if inconsistent with federal protections. | No preemption; Massachusetts statute compatible with federal standards. |
| If preemption applies, are warrants valid under Vitello? | Vitello would invalidate noncompliant provisions but permits severable warrants. | Preemption would render state warrants invalid. | Warrants remain valid if they meet federal standards; statute not repugnant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vitello, 367 Mass. 224 (Mass. 1975) (preemption and severability of state wiretap provisions; concurrent regulation)
- Commonwealth v. Ennis, 439 Mass. 64 (Mass. 2003) (statutory interpretation of wiretap provisions; history of § 99)
- Tavares v. Commonwealth, 459 Mass. 289 (Mass. 2011) (designated offense and nexus requirements for wiretap orders)
- O'Sullivan v. NYNEX Corp., 426 Mass. 261 (Mass. 1997) (scope of wiretap requirements pre- and post-ECPA context)
- Dillon v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 309 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (intrinsic scope of statutory language; broad reading of statutes)