Commonwealth v. DePeiza
449 Mass. 367 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A combination of factors, including presence in a high-crime area late at night, behavior consistent with police training for carrying a concealed firearm, nervousness, and active concealment of one side of the body from police, can collectively establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop and a protective patfrisk.
Facts:
- Shortly after midnight on April 27, 2005, Michael DePeiza was walking through a high-crime area in the Dorchester section of Boston while talking on his cell phone.
- Police Officers John Conway and Dean Bickerton, on patrol in an unmarked vehicle, noticed DePeiza because he was walking with his right arm held stiffly against his side.
- The officers had learned in police academy training that this distinctive 'straight arm' gait was a sign that a person could be carrying a firearm.
- The officers approached and began a conversation with DePeiza, during which he continually shielded his right side from their view.
- DePeiza appeared nervous, looking from left to right and shifting his weight, which the officers interpreted as signs he was likely to run.
- DePeiza voluntarily offered his identification to the officers.
- As DePeiza reached for his identification, he continued to turn his right side away from the officers in an awkward motion, and they observed that his right jacket pocket appeared to contain a heavy object.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael DePeiza was charged in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress the handgun, ammunition, and statements, which the trial court judge denied after a hearing.
- After a jury-waived trial in the same court, DePeiza was convicted of both charges.
- DePeiza (as appellant) appealed his convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the judgments of the trial court, finding the motion to suppress should have been granted.
- The Commonwealth (as appellant) applied for further appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which granted the application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the combination of a person's presence in a high-crime area late at night, a 'straight arm' gait suggestive of carrying a firearm, nervous behavior, and continuous efforts to conceal one side of their body from police give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop and patfrisk?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
Yes. The investigatory stop was justified because the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing the crime of carrying an illegal firearm. The court determined that the encounter did not constitute a seizure until the officers announced their intention to conduct a patfrisk. At that moment, the officers' suspicion was based on a combination of specific, articulable facts: 1) the encounter occurred after midnight in a high-crime area known for firearm violence; 2) DePeiza walked with a 'straight arm' gait, which the officers' training indicated was a method of concealing a firearm; 3) DePeiza exhibited nervous behavior; and 4) most significantly, he persistently attempted to conceal his right side from the officers' view. The court distinguished this from cases where mere possession of a concealed firearm was suspected, holding that the active concealment from police specifically supplied the reasonable suspicion that the firearm was illegal. The subsequent patfrisk was also justified because the same facts that created reasonable suspicion of an illegal firearm also supported a reasonable belief that DePeiza was armed and dangerous, posing a threat to officer safety.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for reasonable suspicion, affirming that a collection of individually innocent behaviors can create a constitutional basis for a stop. The court places significant weight on police training and experience, such as recognizing the 'straight arm' gait, in the reasonable suspicion calculus. Crucially, the analysis distinguishes between mere suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon (which is not a crime per se) and suspicion of illegality; the defendant's active concealment from police was the key factor that elevated the suspicion to one of criminal activity. This provides a clearer framework for how evasive or concealing behavior can be a critical element in justifying a Terry stop.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. DePeiza