Commonwealth v. Warren
475 Mass. 530
| Mass. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 18, 2011, police responded to a reported breaking and entering on Hutchings Street; victims described three black male suspects (one in a red hoodie, two in dark clothing) and reported stolen items.
- Officer Anjos canvassed the area ~15 minutes, broadcast the general descriptions, and later (about 25 minutes after the call) observed two black males in dark clothing near a park about one mile from the scene.
- Anjos called out from his cruiser; the two men jogged into the park. Anjos radioed other officers who then approached the men as they exited the park toward Dale Street.
- Officer Carr called, “Hey fellas”; the defendant ran, Carr ordered him to stop, observed the defendant clutch his pants after the stop command, pursued, caught him on Wakullah Street, drew his gun, and after a brief struggle arrested and searched him; no contraband on person.
- Minutes after arrest police recovered a .22 caliber handgun in the front yard of a nearby house. Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of unlawful possession of a firearm; he moved to suppress arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial judge denied the suppression motion; the Appeals Court affirmed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and vacated the conviction, holding the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Warren's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to seize Warren as a suspect in the breaking and entering | Two men matched the broadcasted description, were found near the time/place of the crime, were the only pedestrians, and fled from police — supporting individualized suspicion | Description was too general (only race and clothing); distance/time made proximity unprobative; flight without other indicia isn't enough | No reasonable suspicion; stop was unlawful and evidence must be suppressed |
| Whether flight and evasive conduct supported suspicion | Flight after police contact supports suspicion, especially with other factors | Flight alone (and induced flight) is insufficient; Black males may avoid police for reasons unrelated to guilt | Flight given little weight absent other individualized, reliable facts |
| Whether the victim’s description permitted targeting Warren | Broadcasted description justified investigating persons matching it | Description lacked particularity (no facial/physical specifics); Warren did not match key features (not 3rd man; no red hoodie; no backpack) | Description too general to create individualized suspicion |
| Whether proximity in time/location created reasonable suspicion | ~25 minutes and ~1 mile proximity plus matching clothing justified stop | Geographic scope large; dispatch gave multiple possible paths; Dale Street was not a logical destination given reported paths of flight | Proximity here was insufficient to supply individualized suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642 (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts)
- Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 449 Mass. 367 (hunch insufficient for stop)
- Commonwealth v. Mercado, 422 Mass. 367 (evasive behavior alone is insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Stoute, 422 Mass. 782 (flight can contribute to reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors)
- Commonwealth v. Cheek, 413 Mass. 492 (general descriptions do not justify stops)
- Commonwealth v. Barros, 435 Mass. 171 (no obligation to answer officer; refusal not proof of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Lyles, 453 Mass. 811 (FIOs are consensual encounters)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 467 Mass. 291 (standard for evaluating stops under the Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Feyenord, 445 Mass. 72 (aggregation of innocent factors may support suspicion in some circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541 (same principle on combining factors)