Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that police seized Tykorie Evelyn under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights when an officer opened a cruiser door after officers followed him and repeatedly attempted to speak with him. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the seizure based on the circumstances, including their observations concerning a possible firearm, and affirmed denial of the motion to suppress. The court further held that a juvenile's objectively apparent or known age is relevant to the seizure analysis, and that race-related concerns may inform the reasonable-suspicion analysis of flight and other evasive behavior.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- When, under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, was the defendant seized during the police encounter?
- Whether the age of a juvenile suspect, when known to an officer or objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, is relevant to the seizure analysis under article 14.
- Whether the defendant's race should inform the article 14 seizure analysis.
- Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, to conduct an investigatory stop.
- Whether the motion judge abused his discretion by admitting and relying on the officers' testimony concerning their training and experience identifying concealed firearms at the suppression hearing.
Holdings
- The defendant was seized when, after following him for approximately one hundred yards and repeatedly attempting to converse with him, an officer opened the door of the police cruiser despite the defendant's evident desire to end the interaction.
- A juvenile's age, when known to the officer or objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, is relevant to whether the juvenile was seized under article 14.
- The court did not consider the defendant's age in deciding whether he was seized because the record did not establish that the officers knew or reasonably should have known that he was under eighteen.
- The court did not decide whether a defendant's race properly informs the seizure inquiry under article 14.
- The officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the defendant under article 14.
- The motion judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting and relying on the officers' testimony concerning their training and experience identifying concealed firearms, or by giving little weight to the defense expert's testimony.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the defendant indeed was seized when, after having trailed him for one hundred yards in a police cruiser and repeatedly having tried to converse with him, the officer in the front passenger's seat opened the door of the cruiser.” (at 3-4)
“We therefore conclude that a child's age, when known to the officer or objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, is relevant to the question of seizure under art. 14.” (at 15)
“That reasoning applies equally to other types of nervous or evasive behavior in addition to flight.” (at 32)
Factual background
Thirteen minutes after a shooting and approximately one-half mile away, Boston police officers encountered seventeen-year-old Tykorie Evelyn walking on a sidewalk. The officers followed him in a cruiser for approximately one hundred yards while repeatedly attempting to speak with him; when an officer opened the cruiser door, Evelyn ran, and the officers pursued and stopped him. The officers observed conduct they believed indicated that he was carrying a concealed firearm, and a firearm was found along his route. Evelyn was Black and argued that his race and age should be considered in determining when he was seized and whether reasonable suspicion existed.
Procedural history
Indictments, including first-degree murder, were returned in the Superior Court Department. A Superior Court judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The defendant obtained leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal in the county court; the appeal was ordered to proceed in the Appeals Court and was then transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court.