130 N.E.3d 174
Mass.2019Background
- In Jan. 2015 a woman was shot dead in an SUV; surveillance audio/video from across the street captured the incident (poor quality video; audio includes Spanish-language argument and a gunshot).
- Three members of the victim’s family (who suspected the defendant) separately identified the defendant from the audio and then from the video; police separated witnesses and did not otherwise suggest the defendant.
- Defendant was arrested, and officers attempted to give Miranda warnings; an untrained Spanish-speaking officer (not a certified interpreter) orally translated the warnings in a fragmented, inaccurate manner; defendant initialed an English Miranda form but spoke limited English/Spanish.
- After (improperly translated) warnings, defendant denied involvement but gave police verbal permission and the passcode to search his seized cell phone; police extracted messages, contacts, photos, and the defendant’s phone number.
- About ten days later police obtained a warrant for 32 days of the defendant’s cell-site location information (CSLI) relying in part on identifications and information from the phone search; motions to suppress followed.
- The trial court suppressed custodial statements (finding the Miranda translation inadequate), denied suppression of identifications and the phone search, and denied suppression of CSLI; appeals followed and the SJC reviewed de novo certain legal questions.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Vasquez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of out-of-court identifications from surveillance audio/video | Identification procedures were not unduly suggestive; witnesses were familiar with defendant so IDs reliable | IDs were tainted by witness bias and prior exposure to defendant’s photo/audio and poor video quality | Affirmed: identification procedure not per se unconstitutional; common-law fairness review likewise did not require suppression given witnesses’ familiarity and safeguards used |
| Adequacy of Miranda warnings translated into Spanish by untrained officer | Defendant demonstrated some comprehension (nodding, some English words); waiver was valid | Translation was fragmented/defective (failed to convey that statements could be used in court); defendant could not knowingly waive rights | Affirmed suppression: translation was inadequate; waiver not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
| Admissibility of evidence from warrantless/consensual search of cell phone | Consent was given after warnings; phone search valid | Consent and phone search flowed from unwarned/invalid warnings; fruits of unwarned interrogation must be suppressed under art. 12 | Reversed denial: phone search evidence suppressed as fruit of the Miranda violation (no attenuation) |
| Probable cause for 32-day CSLI warrant given excision of tainted phone-derived info | Even without tainted phone data, affidavit contained sufficient corroborating evidence (IDs, history) to support CSLI warrant | Affidavit relied on tainted info (phone number) and failed to show nexus between long-range CSLI and the crime | Reversed denial: when tainted information excised, affidavit did not establish probable cause or the necessary nexus for 32 days of CSLI; CSLI suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 473 Mass. 594 (discussion of due process suppression for unduly suggestive identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429 (standard of review on motions to suppress)
- Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537 (Miranda requirements and burden to prove valid waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 444 Mass. 213 (fruits doctrine under art. 12 for unwarned statements)
- Commonwealth v. Hobbs, 482 Mass. 538 (CSLI: need nexus between CSLI and crime/location at relevant time)
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (standards for CSLI warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (CSLI nexus and limits on historical CSLI collection)