Massachusetts court reinstates bodycam footage in OUI checkpoint case

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed a lower-court suppression order, ruling that troopers did not secretly record OUI suspect Scott Grimaldi at a Springfield checkpoint.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstates bodycam footage in Springfield OUI case

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has reversed a lower-court ruling that had suppressed bodycam footage of an OUI suspect's field sobriety tests, handing a significant legal win to the Massachusetts State Police. According to police1.com, the ruling turns on whether troopers "willfully" and secretly recorded suspect Scott Grimaldi at a sobriety checkpoint in Springfield in March 2024.

Checkpoint stop on Page Boulevard

State Police set up the sobriety checkpoint on Page Boulevard in Springfield. At around 11:30 p.m., Grimaldi pulled his black pickup truck into the checkpoint. A trooper noticed the smell of alcohol, alleged slurred speech, and glassy eyes, and directed Grimaldi to a separate screening area — referred to as the checkpoint "pit" — for further examination.

A large, highly reflective orange or yellow sign reading "Checkpoint, video and audio recording" was posted at the entrance to that area. Two troopers, Sean Clark and Sarah Cantwell, were both wearing body-worn cameras attached to their jackets at chest level, with red indicator lights visible during recording.

Two field sobriety tests recorded

The troopers administered two standard field sobriety tests to Grimaldi. During the first — the nine-step "walk and turn" — Cantwell stood immediately to Grimaldi's left while Clark detached his body-worn camera from his chest and held it near his torso, pointing it at Grimaldi's feet from a distance of ten to fifteen feet. Clark held the camera in that position for the roughly 40 seconds the test lasted.

For the second test, the "one-leg stand," Clark reattached the camera to his jacket. Both troopers remained facing Grimaldi and stood several feet away — Cantwell to his left, Clark to his right. Following the tests, Grimaldi was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Motion to suppress initially granted

Before trial, Grimaldi filed a motion to suppress the bodycam recordings, arguing that the troopers had violated the state's wiretap statute by failing to inform him he was being audio-visually recorded. He contended that he was unaware of the recording until after his arrest.

A Springfield district court judge agreed, finding that "the defendant was not reasonably put on notice of any recording" and ruling that the troopers' use of body-worn cameras violated the wiretap statute. The judge allowed the motion to suppress.

State appeals; SJC reverses

The state then appealed the suppression order. The SJC reversed the lower-court ruling on Tuesday, concluding that the troopers had not committed a willful interception under the wiretap statute.

"Because the troopers did not commit a willful interception under the wiretap statute, we reverse the motion judge's allowance of the defendant's motion to suppress," the SJC wrote in its ruling.

The court explained that willfulness under the statute requires not merely an intent to record, but an intent to record secretly — that is, to record someone without their knowledge. "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," the SJC wrote.

Open recording, visible sign

The SJC identified two key factors that negated any finding of secret recording. First, the presence of the large reflective sign at the entrance to the pit area demonstrated that the troopers intended to notify motorists of the audio-visual recording, regardless of whether Grimaldi himself actually saw it.

"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 audio-visually recorded," the court wrote.

Second, the open and visible manner in which the cameras were used indicated that the troopers did not intend to conceal the recording. The cameras were worn at chest level with visible red indicator lights, and Clark openly used his camera as a handheld device — detaching it from his jacket and pointing it directly at Grimaldi's feet during the walk and turn test.

"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," the SJC added.

The ruling means the bodycam recordings will be admissible at trial, removing the evidentiary gap that had resulted from the original suppression order. The case is now expected to proceed before the district court.

Source: Google News MT — Crime (en)