MA: Investigative equal protection claim can be enforced by DA’s discovery failure

Defendant raised an equal protection claim about discovery of ShapChat search warrants. Defense counsel stated that an informal survey of defense lawyers handling about 1/4th of the cases in Suffolk County showed that 85% of the warrants were against black defendants and 15% against Hispanics. The trial court granted further discovery under state law and the DA refused. The case was dismissed as a discovery sanction. On appeal, the judgment is affirmed. “We reject the Commonwealth’s view of what types of police investigatory practices are subject to the revised Long equal protection framework. The Long standard applies to alleged discriminatory policing in the investigatory phase of a case. See Robinson-Van Rader, 492 Mass. at 20-21 (‘street-level’ investigations). It encompasses a claim that the police monitored social media accounts based on the target’s race or membership in another protected class.” Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 2024 Mass. LEXIS 348 (Sep. 6, 2024).

Ohio reiterates that a violation of a regulation or statute is not reason for applying the exclusionary rule. It is limited to constitutional violations. State v. Sheckles, 2024-Ohio-3339 (Sept. 6, 2024).*

ShotSpotter alert contributed to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Muhammad, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158660 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2024).

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.