Massachusetts SJC Says Body-Worn Camera Recording at OUI Checkpoint Did Not Violate Wiretap Law
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Scott M. Grimaldi addresses an increasingly important issue in criminal defense: when police use body-worn cameras during an OUI investigation, does the recording violate the Massachusetts wiretap statute if the driver is not personally told that he is being recorded?
The Court’s answer, under the facts of this case, was no.
The decision is important for anyone charged with operating under the influence in Massachusetts, especially where the case involves field sobriety tests, police body camera footage, sobriety checkpoints, or a motion to suppress evidence under the Massachusetts wiretap statute. The ruling does not give police unlimited permission to secretly record people. But it does make clear that suppression under the wiretap statute requires proof that the police willfully made a secret recording.
In Grimaldi, the SJC held that the State police troopers did not willfully commit an unlawful interception because the evidence showed they did not intend to secretly record the defendant.
The Facts of the Case
Scott Grimaldi was stopped at a State police sobriety checkpoint in Springfield on March 14, 2024. The checkpoint was set up on Page Boulevard. When Grimaldi drove into the checkpoint, a trooper observed signs of possible impairment: an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes.
As a result, Grimaldi was directed to a secondary screening area, sometimes referred to as the checkpoint “pit.” This was a separate area where troopers further evaluated drivers suspected of operating under the influence.
Near the area where drivers were directed into the pit, there was a large, bright, reflective sign indicating that the checkpoint involved video and audio recording. The exact location of the sign was not established with precision, and no photograph of the sign was introduced into evidence. The motion judge found that there was no evidence that Grimaldi actually saw the sign or that any trooper directed his attention to it.
Once Grimaldi was in the secondary screening area, troopers recorded him with body-worn cameras. The cameras were attached to the troopers’ jackets at chest level. They were visible. They also had red lights that were illuminated when recording.
The area itself was brightly lit by floodlights. There were marked State police cruisers, uniformed troopers, and a large State police vehicle nearby.
Grimaldi performed two field sobriety tests: the nine-step walk-and-turn test and the one-leg stand test. During the walk-and-turn test, one trooper removed his body camera from his jacket and held it near his torso, pointing it toward Grimaldi’s feet to record his movements. After the field sobriety tests, Grimaldi was arrested and charged with operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The Motion to Suppress
Before trial, Grimaldi moved to suppress the body-worn camera recordings. He argued that the recordings violated the Massachusetts wiretap statute because he had not been told that he was being recorded, had not consented to being recorded, and did not know he had been recorded until later.
The District Court judge agreed with Grimaldi. The judge found that Grimaldi had not been reasonably put on notice that he was being recorded. The judge therefore allowed the motion to suppress the recordings.
The Commonwealth appealed. The case eventually reached the Supreme Judicial Court.
The Massachusetts Wiretap Statute
Massachusetts has one of the strictest wiretap statutes in the country. Under G. L. c. 272, § 99, it is generally unlawful to secretly record oral communications without the required authority or consent.
The key word in the statute is “secretly.” The statute does not punish every recording. It punishes secret interceptions of communications.
The SJC has previously held that a body-worn camera is an “intercepting device” under the wiretap statute. That means police body camera recordings can potentially trigger the statute. If a recording violates the wiretap statute, the remedy can be serious: suppression of the recording. In some cases, both the audio and video portions of the recording may be excluded.
But suppression is not automatic simply because a person was recorded by police. The question is whether the police willfully committed a secret interception.
The SJC’s Holding
The SJC reversed the suppression order.
The Court held that the troopers did not willfully violate the wiretap statute because the record did not support a finding that they intended to secretly record Grimaldi.
The Court emphasized several facts:
First, the checkpoint had a large, bright, reflective sign warning drivers that audio and video recording was occurring. Even though Grimaldi may not have actually seen the sign, the existence of the sign showed that police were trying to notify motorists that they were being recorded.
Second, the body-worn cameras were openly displayed on the troopers’ jackets. They were not hidden.
Third, the cameras had visible red lights when recording.
Fourth, the secondary screening area was brightly lit, not dark or concealed.
Fifth, one trooper openly removed his body-worn camera from his chest and pointed it toward Grimaldi’s feet during the walk-and-turn test. That conduct was inconsistent with an intent to secretly record.
For those reasons, the Court concluded that the troopers did not act with the required willfulness. They may not have personally told Grimaldi that he was being recorded, and they may not have complied perfectly with department policy. But the SJC held that those facts did not establish a willful secret interception under the wiretap statute.
Why the Decision Matters
This case matters because body-worn camera footage has become a central piece of evidence in many Massachusetts criminal cases. In OUI cases especially, the recording may show the defendant’s speech, balance, coordination, demeanor, ability to follow instructions, and performance on field sobriety tests.
For the defense, body camera footage can cut both ways. Sometimes it helps the prosecution. Sometimes it helps the defendant. A video may show that a person was polite, steady, coherent, and not as impaired as the police report suggests. It may also reveal problems with the administration of field sobriety tests, confusion in the instructions, poor lighting, uneven pavement, distractions, or officer exaggeration.
The question in Grimaldi was not whether the video helped or hurt the defense. The question was whether the recording should be suppressed altogether because of the wiretap statute.
The SJC’s answer narrows the circumstances in which a defendant can obtain suppression based on police body camera recording. The defense must show more than a failure to give an oral warning. The defense must establish that the recording was secret and that the police intended to secretly record.
Failure to Follow Police Policy Was Not Enough
One of the most important parts of the decision involves the State police body-worn camera policy.
The policy stated that members using body-worn cameras should make every effort to inform civilians that they are being recorded at the earliest opportunity, unless doing so would be impossible or dangerous. The policy suggested language such as: “Ma’am/Sir, I am advising you that our interaction is being recorded.”
The troopers did not give that oral advisement to Grimaldi.
But the SJC held that even if the troopers failed to comply with the policy, that failure did not automatically require suppression under the wiretap statute. The reason is that the wiretap statute asks whether there was a willful secret interception. A policy violation is not the same thing as a statutory violation.
That does not mean police policies are irrelevant. A failure to follow policy can still matter. It may affect credibility. It may support cross-examination. It may show sloppy procedure. In some constitutional contexts, failure to follow a written policy can support suppression. But in this case, the Court held that the alleged policy violation did not prove that the troopers intended to secretly record Grimaldi.
What This Means for OUI Defense in Massachusetts
For people charged with OUI in Massachusetts, Grimaldi has several practical consequences.
First, body camera footage from an OUI investigation will often be admissible even if the officer did not verbally tell the driver that the interaction was being recorded. The defense will need to look carefully at the full circumstances: whether cameras were visible, whether lights were visible, whether there were signs, whether the interaction occurred in a public or well-lit area, and whether the officer’s conduct suggested concealment.
Second, the decision makes it harder to win a wiretap-based suppression motion where the police made some effort to disclose recording, even if the defendant did not actually understand or notice that recording was happening.
Third, defense lawyers should not assume that a body camera policy violation equals suppression. The policy may still be useful, but it must be connected to a statutory or constitutional violation.
Fourth, the decision reinforces the importance of obtaining and reviewing all body camera footage. The footage itself may answer key questions about visibility, lighting, officer conduct, camera placement, and whether the recording was open or concealed.
The Difference Between “Secret” and “Unnoticed”
A major theme in Grimaldi is the distinction between a recording that is secret and a recording that the defendant simply did not notice.
The SJC’s reasoning suggests that a recording is not necessarily secret just because the defendant did not subjectively know about it. If the police took steps that were objectively inconsistent with secrecy — such as using visible cameras, visible recording lights, signage, and open recording methods — the recording may not qualify as a willful secret interception.
That distinction is critical.
A person may fail to notice a sign. A person may not recognize a body-worn camera. A person may be nervous, distracted, impaired, or focused on the officer’s instructions. But under Grimaldi, the defendant’s lack of actual awareness does not automatically prove that police secretly recorded him.
The focus is on the police conduct and intent.
The Defense Takeaway
Although the Commonwealth won in Grimaldi, the decision does not eliminate wiretap challenges to police recordings. It simply clarifies what the defense must prove.
A stronger suppression argument may exist where the recording device was hidden, where there was no sign or warning, where the officer affirmatively concealed the recording, where the encounter occurred in a setting that made recording non-obvious, or where the facts show that police intended to record without the person’s knowledge.
In future cases, defense lawyers should investigate:
Whether the body camera was visible;
Whether the recording light was visible;
Whether any sign warned of audio or video recording;
Whether the defendant had a fair opportunity to see the sign;
Whether officers gave a verbal advisement;
Whether the police report mentions recording;
Whether department policy required notice;
Whether the officer concealed or manipulated the camera;
Whether the body camera was used openly or covertly;
Whether the recording captured private conversations beyond the police encounter.
The facts will matter. Grimaldi was not a blanket approval of all police recording. It was a fact-specific decision based on the Court’s conclusion that the troopers did not intend to secretly record.
Why Body Camera Footage Still Matters in OUI Cases
Even when body camera footage is not suppressed, it may still be one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case.
In an OUI prosecution, the government often relies on officer observations: odor of alcohol, bloodshot or glassy eyes, slurred speech, unsteadiness, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and admissions to drinking. Body camera footage allows the defense to test those observations against what actually appears on video.
A police report may say that a person was unsteady. The video may show something different. A report may say the person slurred their speech. The video may show clear and appropriate answers. A report may describe field sobriety tests as failed, while the video may show that the instructions were confusing, the conditions were poor, or the performance was not as bad as claimed.
In some cases, the best defense is not to suppress the video. The best defense is to use it.
Conclusion
The SJC’s decision in Commonwealth v. Grimaldi is an important ruling on police body-worn cameras, OUI checkpoints, and the Massachusetts wiretap statute. The Court held that State police did not willfully commit a secret interception when they recorded a driver during field sobriety tests at a sobriety checkpoint where there was a warning sign, visible body cameras, visible recording lights, and open use of the recording equipment.
For defendants, the decision means that not every failure to give a verbal recording warning will lead to suppression. For defense lawyers, it means that wiretap challenges must be carefully developed around the specific facts showing secrecy and intent.
At the same time, the decision reinforces the importance of demanding, reviewing, and analyzing body camera footage in every OUI case. Whether the footage is used in a motion to suppress, cross-examination, plea negotiation, or trial, it may be the most accurate record of what actually happened.
Questions and Answers About Commonwealth v. Grimaldi
Did the SJC say police can always record OUI suspects with body cameras?
No. The Court did not create a blanket rule allowing all police recording. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case, including the warning sign, visible cameras, visible recording lights, bright lighting, and open use of the body-worn camera.
Does an officer have to verbally tell a driver that a body camera is recording?
The SJC held that the failure to give a verbal warning did not require suppression under the facts of this case. However, department policy may still require officers to make efforts to notify civilians that they are being recorded.
Why was the recording not suppressed?
The recording was not suppressed because the SJC concluded that the troopers did not willfully commit a secret interception. The Court found that the troopers’ conduct was inconsistent with an intent to secretly record the defendant.
Can a body camera recording violate the Massachusetts wiretap statute?
Yes. The SJC has recognized that a body-worn camera can be an intercepting device under the Massachusetts wiretap statute. But to obtain suppression, the defense must show that the recording violated the statute, including the requirement of a willful secret interception.
How can body camera footage help in an OUI case?
Body camera footage can show whether the officer’s written report accurately describes the driver’s speech, balance, coordination, demeanor, and performance on field sobriety tests. In some cases, the video may help the defense challenge the government’s claim that the driver was impaired.