── Commonwealth v. Grimaldi ──
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date: June 02, 2026
Category: General
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030;
[email protected]
SJC-13842
COMMONWEALTH vs. SCOTT M. GRIMALDI.
Hampden. February 4, 2026. – June 2, 2026.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Kafker, Wendlandt, Georges,
Dewar, & Wolohojian, JJ.
Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence. Evidence, Field
sobriety test, Videotape, Wiretap, Intent. Intent.
Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Springfield Division
of the District Court Department on March 15, 2024.
A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Robert
T. Santaniello, J.
An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory
appeal was allowed by Gaziano, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court
for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to
the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own
initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Travis H. Lynch, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.
Kyle J. DeSousa (Brandon A. Parrelli also present) for the
defendant.
2
GAZIANO, J. In this case, we examine whether audio-visual
recordings of defendant Scott Grimaldi, made by State police
troopers using body-worn cameras, violated the wiretap statute,
G. L. c. 272, § 99 (§ 99). While driving his truck, the
defendant was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint operated by State
police in Springfield. At a secondary screening area, troopers
recorded the defendant's unsuccessful attempts at performing
field sobriety tests. He was subsequently arrested for
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, in violation of G. L. c. 90,
§ 24 (1) (a) (1).
The defendant moved to suppress the body-worn camera
recordings under the wiretap statute, asserting that he had no
knowledge that he was being recorded until after his arrest. A
District Court judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress,
holding that the recordings violated the wiretap statute. After
the Commonwealth's application for leave to appeal from the
suppression order was allowed, we transferred the Commonwealth's
appeal to this court on our own motion.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that the troopers did
not "willfully commit[] an interception . . . of any . . . oral
communication." G. L. c. 272, § 99 C 1. Accordingly, we
reverse the motion judge's suppression order.
3
1. Background. a. Facts. "We recite the facts as found
by the motion judge following an evidentiary hearing on the
defendant's motion to suppress, supplemented by undisputed
testimony not inconsistent with those findings, and by our
independent review of [the] body-worn camera video footage
admitted in evidence" (citations omitted). Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 497 Mass. 156, 157 (2026). See Commonwealth v.
Clarke, 461 Mass. 336, 341 (2012) ("we are in the same position
as the [motion] judge in viewing the videotape" [citation
omitted]).
On March 14, 2024, the State police established a sobriety
checkpoint on Page Boulevard in Springfield. At approximately
11:30 P.M., the defendant pulled his black pickup truck into the
checkpoint. After noticing the smell of alcohol, the
defendant's slurred speech, and his glassy eyes, a trooper
directed the defendant to the checkpoint "pit" -- a separate
screening area where troopers further assessed drivers suspected
of bei