Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Boston police lacked reasonable suspicion to seize and frisk the defendant based on his flight, his hand position, and the surrounding circumstances. The court affirmed the motion judge’s order suppressing the handgun and related evidence, emphasizing deference to supported factual findings and cautioning against appellate supplementation of those findings.

Holdings

1. The defendant was seized when, after the officer loudly called "Wait a minute," the officer began chasing him, because the circumstances showed that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.
2. The officers lacked an objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when they seized the defendant; flight and keeping a hand inside one's pants, without more, were insufficient under the facts found by the motion judge.
3. An appellate court may not supplement a motion judge's findings with testimony that was neither explicitly nor implicitly credited, and may not independently reassess the evidence or credibility to reach a contrary suppression ruling.

Questions Presented

1. When was the defendant seized for purposes of the motion to suppress?
2. At the time of the seizure, did the officers have an objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts?
3. May an appellate court supplement a motion judge's findings with testimony that the judge did not explicitly or implicitly credit in order to reach a contrary suppression ruling?

Disposition

affirmed