Commonwealth v. Grimaldi

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that State police troopers did not willfully intercept oral communications under the Massachusetts wiretap statute when their body-worn cameras recorded a defendant during field sobriety testing at a sobriety checkpoint. The court concluded that the prominent recording warning sign, visible cameras and recording lights, and open use of a camera foreclosed an intent to secretly record. It reversed the District Court judge’s order suppressing the recordings.

Holdings

1. The troopers did not willfully commit an interception under G. L. c. 272, § 99 because the evidence showed that they intended to notify motorists of the recording and did not intend to record the defendant secretly. The defendant's lack of actual knowledge or failure to see the warning sign did not establish willfulness.
2. Any failure by the troopers to comply with the State police body-worn-camera notification policy was not an independent ground for suppression under G. L. c. 272, § 99 P, because the interception was not willful.

Questions Presented

1. Whether State police troopers willfully intercepted the defendant's oral communications under G. L. c. 272, § 99 by recording him with openly displayed body-worn cameras during a sobriety-checkpoint field sobriety examination.
2. Whether the troopers' alleged failure to comply with State police body-worn-camera notification policy independently required suppression under the wiretap statute.

Disposition

reversed