Motor vehicles – Selective enforcement

Where a defendant who was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor has challenged the rejection of her selective enforcement claim, the conviction should be affirmed because the record supports the lower court’s determination that race-neutral reasons prompted the officers’ actions.

“Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Ashlie Lewis, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). On appeal she argues that a judge erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence from an ‘illegal inventory search,’ and her motion to suppress evidence under Commonwealth v. Long, 485 Mass. 711 (2020). Discerning no errors, we affirm. …

“The defendant contends that the officers violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by exceeding the scope of a lawful wellness check and violating the terms of the inventory policy. Her arguments are unavailing. …

“The defendant next argues that the motion judge erred in denying her selective enforcement claim under Long, 485 Mass. at 724-725. For the reasons stated below, the claim fails. …

“… In his analysis, the motion judge first assumed without deciding that the test established under Long applies in the present case even though ‘no stop took place.’ The motion judge was correct to do so. As the Supreme Judicial Court recently held, ‘the equal protection standard established in Long for traffic stops applies equally to pedestrian stops and threshold inquiries, as well as other selective enforcement claims challenging police investigatory practices.’ …

“Next, the motion judge found that the defendant had failed to meet her burden of establishing a reasonable inference of selective enforcement. Specifically, the motion judge found that the statistical data provided by the defendant was virtually identical for white motorists versus Black motorists, and otherwise ‘unpersuasive.’ …

“Although the motion judge found the statistical evidence to be unpersuasive, for purposes of our analysis we will assume, without deciding, that the evidence was adequate to satisfy the defendant’s burden at the first step of the Long analysis. Going to the second step, as the motion judge did here, the record supports his determination that race-neutral reasons prompted the officers’ actions. Specifically, as the motion judge found, the arresting officer, along with the police chief, responded to a 911 call regarding an unresponsive operator of a vehicle, ‘slumped over the wheel’; found the vehicle parked across marked lines and ‘partially blocking the entrance’ to an open business; found the defendant ‘passed out behind the wheel’ of the vehicle; saw her having difficulty unlocking the door to the vehicle; and saw her exhibit classic indicia of intoxication prior to asking her to perform field sobriety tests and arresting her.

“In addition, the motion judge explicitly incorporated his findings from the prior suppression hearing into his findings on the Long motion. Therein, he found, inter alia, that ‘the officers were justified in approaching the defendant’ in view of the real time report relaying a ‘first hand observation that the defendant was passed out behind the wheel of her vehicle’; that the officers had at least reasonable suspicion that the defendant was impaired, justifying the responding officer’s ‘decision to ask the defendant to step from the vehicle and offer field sobriety tests’; and that ‘[c]ommon sense and public safe[t]y dictated that the police could not abandon the defendant’s vehicle in an operating business lot, partially blocking the entrance.’ The judge credited all these race-neutral reasons supporting the officer’s actions — i.e., the approach to the vehicle, inquiry of the defendant, and ensuing arrest and search — and the record supports these findings. … In light of these findings, the judge reasonably determined that the police actions were motivated by the evidence and not by the defendant’s race. Therefore, there was no error in the denial of the Long motion.”

Commonwealth v. Lewis (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-089-25) (14 pages) (Neyman, J.) A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Thomas L. Finigan, J., and a motion for reconsideration was heard by him; a pretrial motion to suppress evidence also was heard by him; and the case was tried before Julianne Hernon, J., in District Court. Ian S. Kahanowitz on appeal for the defendant; Caleb J. Schillinger for the commonwealth (Docket No. 24-P-825) (Dec. 10, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.