On December 20, 2018 between 12-1:30am the Scituate police received four anonymous phone calls from the same man.
In the first call, the man told police that a car was driving up and down his street making noise. Moments later, the same man called again to give the car’s license plate number to the dispatcher.
An officer spotted the car, stopped it, and spoke with the driver, Timothy Hurley. The officer found no evidence of a crime. Timothy was sober and had a valid license. Additionally, there was no indication that Timothy was causing excessive noise. Accordingly, the officer let Timothy go.
Shortly after this encounter a third call was made by the same man. This time he told police that the same vehicle nearly hit him and his mother as they were near the town’s train station. The caller told police that he believed the driver must be “on drugs or something.”
After a dispatcher relayed this information to the officers on duty, one responded that he was (and had been) at the train station and saw no illegal behavior.
Finally, around 1:30 am, the caller made a fourth and final call. In this call, he again told the dispatcher that the same car was near his home on Jenkins Place and making excessive noise.
After this call, the dispatcher radioed police and informed that that the same vehicle was near Jenkins Place and that the caller would go to the police station and submit a written complaint. The dispatcher said nothing about the alleged noise.
Police observed Timothy’s car parked legally on Berkshire Road. One officer drove up and positioned his cruiser in front of Timothy’s car. A second cop car pulled behind Timothy’s car. Both cruisers had their blue lights activated.
As officers approached Timothy’s car they allegedly saw drug paraphernalia in plain view. Additionally, the police claim that one of the car’s passengers made “furtive movements” as they approached. Based on these observations, the police searched the vehicle and found a loaded firearm.
Timothy was charged with carrying a loaded firearm without a license, a felony under M.G.L. c. 269, Sec. 10(n).
Timothy’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the police lacked “reasonable suspicion” to stop the defendant’s car on Berkshire Road. (Both sides acknowledged that police stopped the defendant, in a constitutional sense, when they boxed in his vehicle with their cruisers.)
The motion judge agreed with Timothy’s lawyer and suppressed the gun from evidence,
A copy of the judge’s findings is attached below.
The prosecution appealed the decision.
The Appeals Court agreed with the motion judge and affirmed his ruling.
According to the applicable case law,
An investigatory stop of a motor vehicle is permitted if the police officer has reasonable suspicion, based upon specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences therefrom, that an occupant of the motor vehicle had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The justices concluded that there was insufficient evidence in the present case to justify the stop.
prior to seeing the defendant’s car on Berkshire Road, the police officers on the scene did not have reasonable suspicion that any crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed. When police arrived at Berkshire Road, which they had every right to do, they also did not witness any criminal activity. They only saw the defendant’s car legally parked in front of a home. Reasonable suspicion may not be based on good faith or a hunch, but on specific, articulable facts and inferences that follow from the officer’s experience. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
To read the full text of the opinion, click the document below.
Law Office of Justin R. McCarthy 