Commonwealth v. Raspberry: Affirming the Limits of Warrantless Searches in Cases of Imminent Threats

July 27, 2018.

In Commonwealth v. Raspberry, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 633 (2018), the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained through warrantless real-time tracking of the defendant’s cell phone location, ruling that the emergency aid exception justified the search given the imminent threat of violence. The court also affirmed the warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception, finding that the police had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained a loaded firearm intended for use in a crime.

Our Take:

In the Raspberry case, the Appeals Court did little more than apply established constitutional principles in a modern context.  While it is incumbent on lawyers and judges to approach any limitation on the warrant requirement with skepticism, the Court’s decision in Raspberry does not affect the boundaries of established protections.  Instead, Raspberry reminds us that durable constitutional principles such as the pure emergency exception are well positioned to guide us even through an age in which technology permeates and changes nearly every aspect of our lives.  

In Raspberry, the Court assumed, but did not decide, that police use of the voluntarily provided CSLI data was a search to which the warrant requirement applied.

But just as the warrant requirement applies to all intrusions into protected areas and interests, its exceptions are coextensive in application.  Thus, when police receive substantial and credible information about an imminent shooting through lawful means, it would be poor police work to hesitate in their response.  Here, pursuant to a wire of uncontested legality, police overheard an angry and emotional woman describing her plan to shoot someone.  The motion judge, who has a reputation as a thoughtful jurist, listened to the calls and determined through tone and content that the calls created “grave concerns” that a shooting would occur imminently.

On that record, an efficient response to protect life and limb was appropriate, and the warrant requirement properly excused.  Of course, cases as compelling as Raspberry are rare, and as with every exception to the warrant requirement, judges should construe Raspberry narrowly and permit warrantless surveillance only when it is clear that such measures are necessary to prevent disaster.   The courts should reject any claimed emergency electronic surveillance where the circumstances “as [they appeared] at that time” suggest that police inexcusably eschewed available, less intrusive means that would be equally effective in preventing injury.  While the sanctity of life justified the police action in this case, we must remain vigilant that the sanctity of our liberty is not an unintended casualty.