Search and seizure – Traffic stop – 911 call

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has moved to suppress evidence obtained during a stop and seizure of him and the car he was driving, a judge’s decision to allow that motion must be reversed because there was reasonable suspicion that the defendant had operated his vehicle negligently and dangerously.

“The defendant, Zachary Crabill, was charged with operating under the influence (OUI), third offense, in violation of G.L.c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), negligent operation in violation of G.L.c. 90, §24(2)(a), and a marked lanes violation, after he was questioned by police as a result of a 911 call that reported erratic driving. Crabill filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the police conducted an illegal stop and seizure of him and the car he was driving, and seeking to suppress evidence obtained from the stop. A District Court judge allowed Crabill’s motion to suppress, and denied the Commonwealth’s motion to reconsider. The Commonwealth appeals, arguing that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. We agree with the Commonwealth and accordingly, reverse. …

“At approximately 9 P.M. on May 14, 2022, Bridgewater police officer Clint Apaza was patrolling in a marked cruiser when he received information from police dispatch regarding a report of erratic driving. …

“… Reasonable suspicion is a ‘low bar,’ lower than probable cause. … ‘To meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard in this Commonwealth, police action must be “based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences therefrom” rather than on a “hunch.”’ … That standard was satisfied here, by the combination of the information from the 911 call and the officer’s independent observations.

“… This was not an anonymous tip, or a confidential informant, but an unsolicited citizen openly describing what they had seen. …

“Perhaps more importantly, the caller’s observations were well corroborated by the observations of Officer Apaza. …

“… Based on the above facts, we have little difficulty concluding that when Officer Apaza approached the defendant’s vehicle, he possessed grounds for reasonable suspicion that the defendant had operated his vehicle negligently and dangerously. Accordingly, the order allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed.”

Commonwealth v. Crabill (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-102-24) (9 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-864) (Sept. 10, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.