Commonwealth v. Rodriguez and Its Impact on Massachusetts Drug Cases
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, SJC-13727, on September 30, 2025, the headlines focused on Snapchat, firearms, and the Equal Protection Clause. But for criminal defense lawyers, the real importance of Rodriguez goes well beyond gun charges.
The SJC’s decision confirms that the equal protection analysis from Commonwealth v. Long applies not just to traffic stops, but also to pretrial investigative choices and, by extension, to warrants. That principle directly reshapes how we defend drug cases in Massachusetts — where pretrial investigations are often the decisive stage of the case.
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we practice daily as Massachusetts drug charge lawyers. We know that Rodriguez is not just about firearms. It is about giving defense attorneys new tools to challenge racially biased investigations in narcotics cases — from undercover buys to social media monitoring to wiretap warrants.
Case Background: Why Rodriguez Matters Beyond Firearms
The facts of Rodriguez involved a Snapchat account designed by police to appear nonwhite, which led to a firearm recovery. But what the SJC said about the law is what matters most:
The totality-of-the-circumstances test from Long governs selective enforcement claims.
That test applies to investigations before any stop or arrest takes place.
If bias shapes those investigative decisions, the taint carries forward into search warrants and the evidence seized.
This means the principles apply just as strongly to drug cases, where most prosecutions hinge on how an investigation began: who the police targeted, how confidential informants were deployed, and why warrants were sought.
How Bias Shapes Drug Investigations
Unlike many other crimes, drug cases almost always start with discretionary police choices:
Controlled buys with informants — Police decide which suspects to target, which neighborhoods to watch, and whom to send informants toward.
Undercover operations — Officers pose as buyers, often choosing personas that reflect racial assumptions.
Social media monitoring — Investigators scan Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram for posts suggestive of drug sales.
Stop-and-frisk operations — Officers decide which cars to pull over or which individuals to approach in so-called “hot spots.”
Wiretap applications — Prosecutors seek extraordinary surveillance tools, but the foundation is laid in earlier, discretionary targeting decisions.
All of these decisions involve front-end police judgment calls — exactly the kind of pretrial investigation choices that Rodriguez says are now subject to equal protection scrutiny.
Extending Rodriguez to Drug Cases
1. Equal Protection Reaches the Investigative Stage
Rodriguez tells us that the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees are not limited to roadside stops or courtroom charging decisions. They extend all the way back to the moment police decide who to target and how.
In drug cases, this means:
A racialized undercover persona on social media (for example, choosing a username that signals race or ethnicity) may itself be discriminatory.
A pattern of targeting nonwhite suspects in controlled buys can raise an inference of selective enforcement.
The absence of written policies for narcotics investigations may amplify the inference of bias, since officers exercise unchecked discretion.
2. Warrants Built on Biased Investigations Can Be Challenged
Drug cases often involve search warrants — for apartments, cars, or phones. Under Rodriguez, defendants can argue:
If the underlying investigation was racially biased, the warrant is tainted.
Evidence seized under that warrant is “fruit of the poisonous tree” and must be suppressed.
Courts must look not only at the four corners of the affidavit, but at the process that led to the affidavit.
3. Systemic Evidence Matters
The SJC stressed the “totality of the circumstances.” For drug cases, defense attorneys can show:
Whether informants are disproportionately sent into communities of color.
Whether street-level operations are concentrated in minority neighborhoods while white suburbs are left unmonitored.
Whether there is any oversight or written guidance for narcotics investigations.
Practical Consequences for Drug Cases
For Defense Attorneys
File broader suppression motions. Don’t just argue Fourth Amendment violations — argue equal protection violations at the investigative stage.
Demand full discovery. Ask for data on who has been targeted in controlled buys, who was chosen for undercover surveillance, and the demographics of past investigations.
Use systemic patterns. If all or most controlled buys involve nonwhite suspects, that is powerful evidence under Rodriguez.
For Prosecutors
Burden shifting is real. Once defendants raise a reasonable inference of bias, prosecutors must provide a credible race-neutral explanation.
Thin rationales won’t work. Courts will scrutinize explanations closely, especially where no written policies exist.
For Judges
Be prepared for broader hearings. Courts must now entertain evidence about the investigatory stage, not just the moment of seizure.
Recognize implicit bias. The SJC made clear that equal protection scrutiny is not limited to cases of explicit racial animus; patterns and implicit bias count.
Why Rodriguez Is a Turning Point for Massachusetts Drug Charge Defense
Drug charges carry devastating penalties in Massachusetts, including:
Possession with intent to distribute (G.L. c. 94C, § 32) — often with mandatory minimums.
School zone enhancements — which can add years to a sentence.
Trafficking charges — carrying minimum sentences of 3½ years, 5 years, or more.
Conspiracy charges — often based on wiretap or surveillance evidence.
In all of these, the most decisive evidence often comes from the pretrial investigation: controlled buys, undercover work, social media monitoring, or warrants.
Rodriguez tells us that these investigative choices can no longer be insulated from equal protection scrutiny. That gives defense lawyers new leverage to suppress evidence and win dismissals.
How We Defend Drug Cases After Rodriguez
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we approach drug cases with the lessons of Rodriguez front and center:
Challenging the initial decision to investigate. We ask: why did police target this client? Was race part of that decision?
Attacking warrants built on biased investigations. We argue that if the foundation is discriminatory, the warrant is unconstitutional.
Highlighting systemic practices. We document patterns showing that narcotics units disproportionately target nonwhite suspects and neighborhoods.
Demanding accountability. We hold prosecutors to their burden of providing race-neutral justifications under Long.
Conclusion: Equal Protection Extends to Drug Cases
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez is not a firearms case alone. It is a decision about fairness in investigations. For drug cases in Massachusetts, it means that defendants now have a stronger basis to challenge discriminatory targeting at the earliest stage.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a drug offense in Massachusetts, the stakes are too high to ignore these new protections.
Call to Action
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we are proud to be among the leading Massachusetts drug charge lawyers, representing clients across the Commonwealth.
If you are searching for a Boston-area criminal defense lawyer for a drug case, we can help.
If you need aggressive, experienced Brockton drug lawyers who know how to use Rodriguez to fight for suppression, our team is here.
Call us today at (508) 897-0001 for a confidential consultation.