On a conditional plea preserving his right to appeal, see Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 (b) (6), as appearing in 482 Mass. 1501 (2019), the defendant pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a loaded firearm. He now appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm seized during a motor vehicle stop. He contends that the police lacked a "reasonable suspicion" to stop him. Giving deference to the motion judge's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous and independently reviewing the judge's conclusions of law, Commonwealth v. Piard, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 434-435 (2025), we affirm and conclude that "specific and articulable facts" justified the intrusion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968).
The judge based his findings on the testimony of four Springfield police officers and exhibits consisting of an Instagram video and video footage from police body cameras. Officers within the firearms investigation unit watched a livestream Instagram video on a computer monitor and also simultaneously recorded the livestream on a cell phone. The cell phone recording, presented as an exhibit at the suppression hearing, lacked details visible to officers on the computer monitor, which provided a "full picture" unobscured by Instagram user pop-up comments. Officers did not have the ability to record the "full picture" of the video footage displayed on the computer monitor. After reviewing the record, we discern no factual error.
As credited by the motion judge, evidence showed that officers watched a livestream Instagram video of the defendant and Luke McKinney smoking marijuana in a stairwell within a multiunit home. Neither the defendant nor McKinney had a license to carry a firearm. Officers suspected that McKinney, who had a history of firearms offenses, had a firearm concealed within the pocket of his sweatshirt based upon the distinctive outline of the object (imprint of handle, protruding end of extended magazine, silhouette of trigger guard), the weight distributed by the object within the pocket, and McKinney's hand gestures regularly checking the position of the object. By contrast, at that moment, the defendant's clothing depicted in the livestream video did not betray the presence of any concealed firearm. Minutes later, officers in radio contact set up surveillance at the home, the livestream video terminated, and the defendant emerged from the residence. Watching the defendant walk to an Audi sedan and enter the rear passenger seat, officers noticed that the appearance of the defendant's clothing had changed -- he now clutched a heavy, concealed object in his right sweatshirt pocket or waistband. Three unmarked cruisers converged and stopped the Audi.
Based upon the totality of several circumstances presented by this evidence before the motion judge (who fully credited the testimony of the police witnesses), we conclude that the police properly stopped the car. First, police recognition of distinctive firearm features observed on the computer monitor's livestream video provided not just a reasonable suspicion, but probable cause to believe that McKinney concealed an unholstered firearm in his clothing. Commonwealth v. Barrett, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 970, 970 (1984) ("observation of the outline of a gun in [the suspect's] pocket gave [the officer] very strong probable cause to believe that [the suspect] was carrying a firearm"). Second, additional observations, noting the difference between the defendant's appearance in the livestream video (without any indication of a firearm) and his appearance emerging from the home minutes later (clutching a heavy object in his sweatshirt pocket or waistband), provided a reasonable suspicion that the defendant acquired possession of the firearm from McKinney within the confined quarters of the stairwell once the livestream ended. See Commonwealth v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725, 730 (2000) (reasonable suspicion where defendants entered hotel without luggage and emerged with two heavy suitcases from room of suspected drug dealer). The concept of reasonable suspicion allows for such logical inferences and does not require the police to see the firearm handed to the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Shane S., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 314, 323 (2017) (police observations "sufficient to support an inference that the [suspect] was carrying a firearm"). Third, the police knew from a record check that the defendant lacked a license to carry a firearm. See G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a) (unlawful to carry firearm without license). Thus, the sequence of circumstances observed by police officers in constant communication during a joint and continuous investigation, Commonwealth v. Privette, 491 Mass. 501, 503, 513 (2023), provided the requisite "specific and articulable facts" and "rational inferences from those facts" justifying the stop of the defendant. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21.
Order denying motion to suppress affirmed.
Daniel DeMaria for the defendant.
Cynthia Cullen Payne, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.