Commonwealth v. Rodriguez: How the SJC Extended Equal Protection to Pretrial Investigations and What It Means for Massachusetts Gun Cases
When you are charged with a firearm offense in Massachusetts, the stakes are enormous. Convictions often carry mandatory minimum sentences, long probation tails, and collateral consequences that affect employment, housing, and immigration status. At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our work as Massachusetts gun charge lawyers demands that we stay on the cutting edge of constitutional law.
On September 30, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a groundbreaking decision in Commonwealth v. Nathaniel Rodriguez, SJC-13727. This case is a turning point in how courts evaluate equal protection challenges to law enforcement practices. For the first time, the Court extended the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis under Commonwealth v. Long to the earliest stages of investigation — long before a stop, arrest, or even warrant execution.
This ruling has enormous consequences for anyone facing a gun case in Boston, Brockton, or across Massachusetts. It means that if police use racially discriminatory tactics in their pretrial investigation, the evidence they later gather — even under a warrant — may be suppressed.
Background: From Snapchat Post to Gun Charge
The Rodriguez case began not with a traffic stop or street encounter, but with a Snapchat post.
A Lowell gang detective created an undercover Snapchat account using a username and avatar designed to appear nonwhite.
Using this account, he friended “boss man Nate,” later identified as Nathaniel Rodriguez.
Rodriguez posted a Snapchat video showing a firearm being discharged from a moving car.
Police traced the post, applied for a search warrant, and recovered a firearm.
Rodriguez moved to suppress, arguing (1) that the investigation was racially discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause and Article 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and (2) that Massachusetts’s firearm licensing laws violated the Second Amendment.
The trial court denied suppression, but the SJC granted direct appellate review.
The SJC’s Core Holding: Long Applies to Pretrial Investigation
The most important aspect of Rodriguez is doctrinal. The Court held that the equal protection framework from Commonwealth v. Long — until now used mostly in the context of traffic stops and face-to-face encounters — applies all the way back to the investigative stage, before a stop, before an arrest, and even before a warrant is sought.
This means:
If bias infects investigative choices (such as who police target online, whose house they surveil, or which accounts they monitor), defendants can raise an equal protection claim.
The Commonwealth must justify its tactics with credible, race-neutral reasons once a defendant raises a reasonable inference of discrimination.
Warrants based on discriminatory investigations may be suppressed, because the warrant is the fruit of the tainted investigation.
For a Boston-area criminal defense lawyer handling gun cases, this opens new strategies for challenging how evidence was obtained.
How the Court Applied the Long Test
Under Long, defendants must show a reasonable inference that police action was motivated, at least in part, by race. Once that inference is raised, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to provide a race-neutral justification.
In Rodriguez, the SJC found that the defendant met his initial burden based on three critical facts:
Use of a nonwhite undercover persona. Choosing a racialized username and avatar was a deliberate classification choice by police.
Lack of policy or oversight. Lowell PD had no written policy for social media surveillance, leaving officers with wide discretion.
Pattern of targeting. All Snapchat investigations produced in discovery involved nonwhite users.
The Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that officers did not know Rodriguez’s race at the moment of friending. Ignorance of race at one point in time does not immunize an investigation from scrutiny under the totality test. Implicit bias and systemic patterns count.
Implications for Firearms Cases
1. Extending Equal Protection to Warrants
The SJC’s reasoning means that search warrants are no longer insulated from equal protection review. If a warrant affidavit is built on an investigation tainted by discriminatory practices, the warrant — and all evidence seized — may fall.
For anyone charged with illegal possession of a firearm, unlawful discharge, or carrying without a license, this creates a powerful suppression argument.
2. Broadening Discovery Rights
Defense lawyers can now demand broader discovery about pretrial investigations, including:
Internal communications about undercover accounts.
Logs of who was targeted and why.
Statistical data showing demographic patterns of targets.
This is especially important in gun cases, where police often rely on social media posts to justify search warrants.
3. Building Systemic Challenges
Because Rodriguez emphasizes the totality of circumstances, systemic evidence matters. Defense lawyers should document:
Whether a police department disproportionately investigates communities of color.
Whether undercover personas are designed to appeal to or entrap racial minorities.
Whether there is any written guidance limiting officer discretion.
Why This Matters to Gun Cases in Massachusetts
Firearm laws in Massachusetts are strict. Common charges include:
Unlawful possession of a firearm without an FID card or LTC (G.L. c. 269, § 10).
Carrying a firearm without a license — often carrying mandatory minimums.
Possession of a large-capacity weapon or magazine.
Discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling.
In each of these, the government must prove possession or use. Increasingly, prosecutors rely on digital evidence — Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, or text messages — to establish probable cause.
Now, thanks to Rodriguez, defendants can argue that if the underlying investigation was racially biased, the evidence cannot be used.
Strategic Guidance for Defendants
If you are facing a gun charge in Massachusetts, here are key takeaways from Rodriguez:
Ask how the police found you. Was it through a social media sting, an anonymous tip, or a surveillance program? Bias may have crept in at the very first step.
Push for discovery. Your lawyer can request data about how the department conducts social media investigations.
Challenge the warrant. Even if police had a warrant, if the application was built on biased investigative choices, the evidence may be suppressed.
Remember: Equal protection is about fairness. Courts are now more willing to acknowledge that systemic bias affects investigative decisions.
Our Role as Massachusetts Gun Charge Lawyers
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we are trial lawyers first and foremost. We defend clients in Boston, Brockton, and across Massachusetts who are facing the most serious firearm charges. We understand that:
A gun charge can mean the difference between freedom and years in prison.
Police often overreach in surveillance, stretching the limits of the Constitution.
Equal protection arguments are not abstract — they can win real cases, suppress evidence, and change outcomes.
We bring the latest case law, like Rodriguez, directly into the courtroom to protect our clients.
Conclusion: A New Era of Gun Case Litigation
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez is not just about Snapchat. It is about extending constitutional scrutiny into the earliest stages of an investigation. For Massachusetts defendants facing firearm charges, this means new opportunities to challenge how evidence was obtained and to hold law enforcement accountable when bias taints the process.
If you or a loved one is facing a gun charge in Massachusetts, whether in Boston, Brockton, or anywhere in the Commonwealth, you need experienced defense lawyers who understand how to use Rodriguez and similar cases to your advantage.
Call to Action
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we are dedicated to defending your rights against overreaching prosecutions.
Looking for a Massachusetts gun charge lawyer?
Need a Boston-area criminal defense lawyer for a gun case?
Want experienced Brockton gun lawyers who fight for suppression when police investigations cross the line?
We are here to help. Call us today at (508) 897-0001 for a confidential consultation.