Commonwealth v. Warren
87 Mass. App. Ct. 476 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A combination of factors, including a general suspect description, temporal and spatial proximity to a recent crime, the absence of others in the area, and a suspect's unprovoked flight from police, can collectively establish the reasonable suspicion required for a constitutional investigatory stop, even if no single factor would be sufficient on its own.
Facts:
- Following a residential breaking and entering, a victim told police he saw three black males fleeing, one in a red hoodie and two in dark clothing, one of whom wore a black hoodie.
- The victim reported that an Apple MacBook and five baseball hats had been stolen.
- Approximately 15 to 18 minutes later and about ten blocks away, Officer Anjos observed two black males in dark clothing walking on an otherwise empty street on a cold night.
- From his cruiser, Officer Anjos yelled, "Hey guys, wait a minute."
- The two men, including Jimmy Warren, made eye contact with the officer, turned around, and jogged away into a park.
- Shortly thereafter, as Officer Carr approached the two men on foot and began to speak, Warren immediately turned and ran back into the park.
- During the ensuing foot pursuit, Officer Carr observed Warren clutching the right side of his pants as he ran.
- After Carr apprehended Warren, a Walther .22 caliber firearm was recovered nearby.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy Warren was charged in trial court with carrying a firearm.
- Warren filed a pretrial motion to suppress the firearm, arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional stop and seizure.
- The trial court judge held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, Warren was convicted of the firearm charge.
- Warren appealed his conviction to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
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 an investigatory stop violate the Fourth Amendment and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights where it is based on a suspect matching a general description, their proximity to a recent crime scene, and their unprovoked flight upon encountering police officers?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, J.
No. The stop did not violate the defendant's rights because the totality of the circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion. The court reasoned that while no single factor alone would justify the stop—neither the general description, the proximity to the crime scene, nor the evasive behavior—their combination was sufficient. The court applied the factors from Commonwealth v. Doocey, noting the temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, the fact that the officers saw no one else on the streets on a cold night, the police corroboration of the crime, and most significantly, the defendant's flight from officers on two separate occasions. This combination of facts allowed police to narrow the range of suspects and provided a particularized and objective basis to suspect Warren was involved in the reported home invasion, justifying the stop.
Dissenting - Agnes, J.
Yes. The stop violated the defendant's rights because the police lacked reasonable suspicion. The description of 'two black males in dark clothing' was too general to create the individualized suspicion necessary for a stop, as it could fit a large number of men in the Roxbury neighborhood. Furthermore, the location of the encounter was nearly a mile from the crime scene, and flight from police, without more, is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, as there can be innocent reasons for avoiding police contact, particularly for minority youths. The dissent argues the police were acting on a mere hunch, not the specific and articulable facts required by law, rendering the subsequent seizure of the firearm unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Rubin, J.
Yes. The stop was unconstitutional because the seizure occurred earlier than the majority concluded and without reasonable suspicion. This dissent argues that the defendant was seized for constitutional purposes the moment Officer Anjos yelled the command, 'Hey guys, wait a minute.' At that point, the only information police had was a highly general description, which was insufficient to justify a stop. The defendant's subsequent flight occurred after this illegal seizure and therefore cannot be used to justify it. The stop was based on a vague racial description that fails to meet the standards of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the 'totality of the circumstances' approach to reasonable suspicion, emphasizing that a collection of individually weak factors can combine to meet the constitutional threshold for an investigatory stop. The case places significant weight on a suspect's flight as a key factor in the analysis, suggesting that evasive conduct can elevate a police officer's mere hunch into reasonable suspicion. The ruling provides law enforcement with clearer authority to stop individuals who flee even when the initial basis for the encounter is a very general description, but the sharp dissents highlight the ongoing legal and social tension surrounding police stops based on vague descriptions and the interpretation of flight in minority communities.
