Constitutional Law and Civil Rights
Constitutional questions on this exam are usually suppression questions in disguise, plus civil-rights exposure. Massachusetts layers its Declaration of Rights over federal floors, and Article 14 is frequently more protective than the Fourth Amendment.
Core rules
- Informant tips: Massachusetts retains the two-prong test of basis of knowledge plus veracity rather than the federal totality approach (Commonwealth v. Upton, 1984).
- Automatic standing: a defendant charged with a possessory offense may challenge a search without proving a property interest (Commonwealth v. Amendola, 2007).
- Exit orders: an officer may order occupants out of a vehicle only with reasonable justification, typically a reasonable fear for safety (Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 1999).
- The automobile exception requires probable cause, and the container rule limits what may be opened.
- First Amendment: the First Circuit recognized a right to record police performing public duties (Glik v. Cunniffe, 2011). Arresting a recorder creates a civil-rights claim.
- Firearms licensing runs through G.L. c. 140, §§ 121 to 131; the statute, not department preference, controls.
- Use of force: the federal standard is objective reasonableness (Graham v. Connor); Massachusetts law and c. 6E add de-escalation and a duty to intervene.
- Suits against a municipality run through the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. c. 258, which caps damages and excludes intentional torts.
Worked example
An officer stops a car for a broken taillight, sees a hunting knife on the console, and orders everyone out. That is lawful under Gonsalves if the officer can articulate the safety concern. A pat frisk of the driver requires a reasonable belief he is armed and dangerous; the knife supports it. Searching the trunk after no weapon is found requires probable cause plus an exception.
Traps
Importing federal doctrine without checking Article 14; and assuming qualified immunity answers a c. 258 claim.