On February 7, 2021, someone called 911 and told the Lowell police that a man had just fired a gun on the Lord Overpass.
According to the caller, the suspect was a white male in his early twenties wearing a black sweatshirt.
The caller added that the suspect has “snow on his person.”
Shortly after receiving the call, a Lowell officer spotted a man matching that description.
The stop took place about a quarter mile from the overpass.
The officer seized the suspect and searched him for weapons.
During the search the officer uncovered a firearm in the suspect’s waistband.
The man was charged with possessing a firearm without a license.
Prior to trial his lawyer filed a motion seeking to suppress the gun.
The lawyer argued that the 911 caller’s description was too general and, consequently, did not give the responding officer the “reasonable suspicion” necessary to seize and search the suspect.
The trial judge denied the motion and the man was ultimately convicted.
The matter was appealed and today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the lower court’s decision.
According to the Appeals Court,
The first part of the description — that the suspect was a white male, in his early twenties, in a black sweatshirt — potentially could apply to many people in the area, as the defendant contends. However, the officer had additional information about the suspect that was more specific than race, gender, age range, and a general clothing description. A 911 caller reported the suspect had snow on his clothing from a recent fall, which distinguished him from others who may simply have been outdoors while it was snowing. The 911 caller also gave the location and direction of travel of the suspect, which was consistent with where the officer located the defendant. This information was particularly pertinent where the officer saw the defendant within a minute or two of the 911 caller’s report, at a location less than one-quarter mile from where the gunshots were reportedly fired. Moreover, that the report was of shots fired added an “edge” to the reasonable suspicion calculus, given the potential imminent threat to public safety. (Citations omitted.)
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.