Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an order suppressing statements and other evidence obtained after police stopped and arrested Perdite Scott in connection with two sexual assaults. The court held that, based on the trial judge’s credited findings, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to conduct the investigatory stop. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the motion judge clearly erred in finding that the investigating officer could not see the defendant's distinguishing facial characteristics when the defendant was seized.
- Whether, based on the facts found by the motion judge, the officer had reasonable suspicion under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to conduct an investigatory stop.
- Whether the court needed to decide whether a seizure occurred when the officer first called to the defendant from thirty to forty feet away.
Holdings
- The motion judge did not clearly err in discrediting the officer's testimony that he could see the defendant's thick lips and facial marks from fifteen to twenty feet away at night.
- The officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop because, after the motion judge rejected the claimed observations of the defendant's facial characteristics, the remaining facts consisted only of the defendant's presence near the prior attack location at roughly the same time of night and his general resemblance to a tall, muscular Black male.
- The court did not decide whether a seizure occurred when the officer first called to the defendant from thirty to forty feet because reasonable suspicion was lacking even at the later point when the defendant was ordered to stop fifteen to twenty feet away.
Key quotations
“In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the judge’s subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error “but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law.”” (646)
“In order for a police investigatory stop to be justified under art. 14, the police must have “reasonable suspicion” to conduct the stop.” (646)
“The determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony is the function and responsibility of the judge who saw the witnesses, and not [of] this court.” (647)
“To be “reasonable” under this standard, the officer’s suspicion must be grounded in “ ‘specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences [drawn] therefrom’ rather than on a ‘hunch.’ ”” (648)
Factual background
Two sexual assaults occurred near the Charles River in Cambridge in June and July 1998, and the victims described a tall Black male with short hair and other facial or physical characteristics. In September 1998, Sergeant Benoit encountered Scott, a tall, muscular Black male, near the attack location at approximately the same time of night. Benoit ordered Scott to stop, searched his bag, questioned him, advised him of Miranda rights, and eventually arrested him. The motion judge discredited Benoit's testimony that he could see Scott's distinguishing facial characteristics from fifteen to twenty feet away at night.
Procedural history
A Superior Court judge allowed Scott's motion to suppress statements and other evidence arising from his stop and arrest. On the Commonwealth's first interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court vacated the order and remanded for additional findings. After a further hearing and additional findings, the Superior Court again allowed suppression; the Appeals Court then reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and affirmed the Superior Court's suppression order.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.