A driver was stopped by state police during a sobriety checkpoint in Springfield.
Troopers–who wore body cameras on their chests–removed the man from his vehicle and required him to perform field sobriety tests.
Although a sign in the checkpoint area advised occupants that they were being audio and video recorded, the troopers never expressly told the driver that he was being filmed.
Ultimately the man was arrested and charged with drunk driving.
His attorney filed a motion to suppress the police video.
The attorney argued that the troopers’ failure to advise the man of their body-wore cameras violated the state’s wiretap statute.
The motion judge allowed the motion and suppressed the videos.
The Commonwealth appealed the decision.
Today the Supreme Judicial Court overruled the judge’s decision.
According to the SJC:
we will find a violation of the wiretap statute when an interception — defined as a “secret[] record[ing]” — is committed intentionally rather than accidentally. That is, willfulness requires not merely an intent to record, but rather an intent to secretly record — i.e., an intent to record someone without their knowledge….Here, the record forecloses any conclusion that the troopers willfully committed an interception. First, regardless of whether the defendant saw the sign warning drivers that they were being recorded, the use of the large, reflective roadside sign at the checkpoint demonstrates that the troopers intended to, and did, notify motorists that they were being audiovisually recorded. Additionally, on the facts of this case, the troopers’ open use of the body-worn cameras indicates that they did not intend to secretly record the defendant. Specifically, the body-worn cameras were attached to the chest of the troopers at the checkpoint and had visible red lights displayed when in operation. Moreover, Clark, who was standing ten to fifteen feet away from the defendant, openly used his body-worn camera as a handheld device during the “walk and turn” test. He detached the camera from his jacket and pointed it directly at the defendant’s feet to record the defendant’s movements during the test. And while the recordings took place at night, the pit was illuminated by bright floodlights, underscoring that the troopers did not intend to conceal their use of the body-worn cameras.
The full text of the opinion is attached.