Search and seizure – Custodial interrogation

Listen to this article

Where a defendant’s motion to suppress was denied, a remand is necessary because the motion judge’s factual findings were insufficient to support his conclusion that the defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation.

“Following a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court, the defendant, Alfred B. Flores, was convicted of three counts of carrying a firearm without a license and three counts of possessing a large capacity feeding device. On appeal, he claims that (1) the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) the trial evidence was insufficient to prove the offenses, and (3) the trial judge erroneously admitted a stipulation to essential elements of the offenses in violation of Mass. R. Crim. P. 23(a), 471 Mass. 1501 (2015). Although we conclude that the evidence sufficed and that there was no error in the admission of the stipulation, we agree that the motion judge’s findings of fact were insufficient to support his rulings on the motion. We therefore remand the matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order and retain jurisdiction to decide whether there was error in the denial of the motion to suppress. …

“The motion judge found the following facts. On July 2, 2017, at approximately 12:45 A.M., Malden police officers responded to a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, they spoke with a woman who reported that the defendant was around the corner of her home. The police went around the corner and saw the defendant placing a bag in a pickup truck. After speaking with the defendant, the police learned that there were guns in the truck. The police searched the truck, found a gun, and handcuffed the defendant. The police picked up a bag with multiple compartments, showed it to the defendant, and asked him where the guns were in the bag. The defendant told them, and the police removed additional guns from the bag. Sometime thereafter the police asked the defendant if he had a firearm license; he answered no.

“The defendant filed a motion to suppress the firearms and ammunition, as well as the statements that he had made to the police. …

“The defendant argues that the order denying the motion to suppress must be reversed because the motion judge’s factual findings were insufficient to support his conclusion that the defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation. We agree that the findings were insufficient. …

“Here, the motion judge’s factual findings are inadequate for us to conduct an independent review of his conclusion that the defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation. In determining whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation, we consider four factors: ‘(1) the place of the interrogation; (2) whether the officers have conveyed to the person being questioned any belief or opinion that that person is a suspect; (3) the nature of the interrogation, including whether the interview was aggressive or, instead, informal and influenced in its contours by the person being interviewed; and (4) whether, at the time the incriminating statement was made, the person was free to end the interview by leaving the locus of the interrogation or by asking the interrogator to leave, as evidenced by whether the interview was terminated with an arrest.’ Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201, 211-212 (2001). In this case, the motion judge did not address or apply any of the Groome factors, and few, if any, of the findings of fact bear on them. In addition, because the motion judge did not implicitly or explicitly credit Polston’s testimony, we cannot supplement his findings with uncontroverted and undisputed evidence from the record. … Because ‘the judge’s factual findings are inadequate and would require us to add facts in an attempt to fill in gaps in the findings,’ … we must remand this case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. …

“The matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order, and we retain jurisdiction to decide whether there was error in the denial of the motion to suppress. Within four months of entry of the rescript, the Superior Court shall provide additional findings on the motion to suppress, and such findings shall be filed by the parties with the Appeals Court. There shall be no further appellate briefing pending further order of this court. Appellate proceedings are stayed pending further order of this court.”

Commonwealth v. Flores (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-012-26) (13 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-1032) (Feb. 4, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.