Commonwealth v. Warren
58 N.E.3d 333, 475 Mass. 530 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A combination of a vague suspect description, proximity to a crime scene, and a suspect's flight from police does not amount to reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop where the description is overly general and flight may be motivated by factors other than consciousness of guilt, such as avoiding racial profiling.
Facts:
- On December 18, 2011, a victim reported a breaking and entering in Roxbury, describing the suspects as three black males: one in a 'red hoodie,' one in a 'black hoodie,' and one in 'dark clothing.'
- The victim saw the three males run down Hutchings Street but did not know their subsequent direction of travel.
- Approximately 25 minutes later and about one mile from the crime scene, Officer Anjos observed two black males, including Jimmy Warren, both wearing dark clothing.
- When Officer Anjos yelled from his cruiser, 'Hey guys, wait a minute,' Warren and his companion made eye contact and jogged into a nearby park.
- On the other side of the park, Officer Carr approached the two men and said, 'Hey fellas,' at which point Warren turned and ran back into the park.
- Officer Carr ordered Warren to stop, and only after this command did Carr observe Warren clutching the right side of his pants as he ran.
- After a pursuit, Carr arrested Warren; police subsequently found a firearm in the front yard of a house on the street where Warren had run.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy Warren was charged in Boston Municipal Court with unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Warren filed a pretrial motion to suppress the firearm, arguing the police stop was unconstitutional. The motion judge (trial court) denied the motion.
- Following a jury-waived trial, Warren was convicted.
- Warren (appellant) appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (highest court) granted Warren's application for further appellate review.
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 a police officer have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of a black male based on a very general description of suspects, the male's proximity to a recent crime, and his flight upon encountering police?
Opinions:
Majority - Hines, J.
No. The police lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop because the facts known to them did not support an individualized suspicion that the defendant had committed the crime. The court reasoned that the victim's description of the suspects was too vague to distinguish the defendant from any other black male in the area. Factors such as proximity to the crime were weakened by the unknown path of flight and the time lapse, and the defendant's flight could not, on its own, create reasonable suspicion. The court also noted that in the context of documented racial profiling in Boston, a black male's flight from police should be given little weight, as it may be motivated by a desire to avoid a police encounter rather than consciousness of guilt.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts the reasonable suspicion analysis, particularly in cases involving minority suspects. By taking judicial notice of a report on racial profiling, the court injects social context into the 'totality of the circumstances' test for an investigatory stop. It cautions lower courts against giving undue weight to a suspect's flight, establishing that such behavior is not necessarily probative of guilt, especially for individuals from communities that are disproportionately targeted by police. This precedent requires police to have more specific, articulable facts connecting a person to a crime before a stop based on a vague description and flight can be justified.
