Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Suppresses Cell Phone Evidence Seized Out of State by Lowell Police
In Commonwealth v. McCarthy, SJC-13667 (2025), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) delivered a major ruling on extraterritorial police authority and the exclusionary rule, suppressing evidence from a cell phone seized without a warrant or legal authority—because it was taken in New Hampshire by a Massachusetts officer acting beyond his jurisdiction.
The Court’s decision underscores two key principles: first, that Massachusetts police officers have no automatic authority to seize evidence outside the Commonwealth; and second, that violations of those territorial limits can—and will—lead to suppression, even if the search would have been lawful within Massachusetts.
The Facts: Lowell Police Cross State Lines
In July 2019, a violent home invasion and assault took place in Lowell, Massachusetts. One of the victims identified the co-defendant, and suggested that the defendant, Michael McCarthy, might also have been involved. Detectives from the Lowell Police Department traced both men to Nashua, New Hampshire, and drove up the next day to speak with them.
Although they informed Nashua police of their intention to speak to the suspects, no mutual aid agreement existed between Lowell and Nashua, and the Lowell officers had not been granted authority to act as police officers in New Hampshire. Nonetheless, with the accompaniment of local officers, the Lowell detectives tracked down the defendant and began questioning him on his porch.
During the conversation, Detective Bowler of the Lowell Police asked to see McCarthy’s phone. McCarthy took it out and unlocked it. Bowler observed what he thought were “swiping gestures” consistent with deleting call log entries—possibly entries connecting McCarthy to the co-defendant on the day of the assault. Another officer confirmed that he too believed McCarthy had deleted something.
On that basis, Detective Bowler seized the phone from McCarthy’s hand—without a warrant, without McCarthy’s consent, and without arresting him. The phone was taken back to Massachusetts. Later, the police obtained a search warrant and examined its contents.
McCarthy was subsequently indicted for home invasion, armed assault in a dwelling, and armed robbery. He moved to suppress the phone evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure outside the detective’s territorial jurisdiction.
The Motion to Suppress: Two Hearings, One Key Issue
The Superior Court judge held two hearings—both focused on whether the Lowell police had legal authority to seize evidence in New Hampshire. At both hearings, Detective Bowler was the sole witness. The Commonwealth conceded that no arrest had occurred, and that the seizure was made based solely on suspicion that McCarthy had deleted evidence.
The trial judge ruled that the Lowell detectives had no legal authority—either statutory or common-law—to seize property in New Hampshire, and that the evidence must be suppressed. The Commonwealth appealed.
The SJC’s Ruling: No Authority, No Exception, No Admissibility
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Wolohojian, the SJC affirmed the suppression of the phone evidence.
1. No Extraterritorial Authority
The Court began by reiterating a basic rule: Massachusetts police officers have no authority to act outside their jurisdiction unless:
They are executing a warrant,
They are making an arrest under a valid “fresh pursuit” exception (G.L. c. 41, § 98A),
They are acting under a mutual aid agreement, or
They qualify for a statutory or common-law citizen’s arrest exception.
The Court carefully examined each of these potential justifications and found that none applied.
“Detective Bowler did not seize the defendant’s cell phone while in fresh and continued pursuit… nor had the defendant committed any crime in Lowell while in the detective’s presence.”
There was also no mutual aid agreement between Lowell and Nashua, and no evidence that the Nashua police had requested assistance. Thus, Detective Bowler lacked legal authority to make any seizure.
2. No Citizen’s Arrest—And No “Citizen’s Seizure” Theory
Could Detective Bowler have been acting as a private citizen? Only under very limited circumstances. Massachusetts and New Hampshire both recognize that a private citizen may arrest someone who has in fact committed a felony—but even that common-law authority is extremely narrow.
Here, Bowler never placed McCarthy under arrest, so this was not a citizen’s arrest. And critically, the SJC noted that there is no such thing as a “citizen’s seizure of property” without an arrest under New Hampshire law.
“The Commonwealth has not shown that [New Hampshire law] would allow a private citizen to seize the property of another for evidentiary purposes in such circumstances.”
The Court dismissed the idea that Bowler’s action could be upheld under any form of common-law or citizen-based authority.
3. No Inevitable Discovery
The Commonwealth also tried to argue that even if the seizure was unlawful, the evidence would have been “inevitably discovered” because police later obtained a warrant. The SJC rejected this too.
The “inevitable discovery” doctrine requires that the Commonwealth prove that discovery would have occurred regardless of the illegal seizure, and that it was “certain as a practical matter.” But:
The Commonwealth did not raise this argument at the original hearing,
There was no evidence that a warrant would have been sought absent the seizure, and
There was no showing that New Hampshire police would have seized the phone themselves.
In short, the illegal seizure was the reason the phone was in Massachusetts in the first place—and the Commonwealth could not undo that retroactively.
4. Suppression Is the Right Remedy
Finally, the Commonwealth argued that even if the seizure was unlawful, suppression was too harsh a remedy—especially since the officers acted in “good faith.”
The SJC was unpersuaded. It reaffirmed that Massachusetts does not recognize a “good faith” exception to its exclusionary rule. More importantly, the Court held that allowing the use of unlawfully obtained evidence undermines both deterrence and the integrity of the judiciary.
“The dual purposes of deterrence and judicial integrity underlying the exclusionary rule are better furthered in these circumstances by application of the Massachusetts exclusionary rule.”
Because the evidence was seized by a Massachusetts officer acting outside his lawful authority, and because the Commonwealth sought to use that evidence in a Massachusetts prosecution, suppression was required.
Key Takeaways for Criminal Defense Attorneys
✅ 1. Territorial Limits Matter
This case is a powerful reminder that Massachusetts police cannot simply cross state lines and act as though they still wear the badge. Outside of their jurisdiction, they are private citizens, subject to strict limits on what they can do.
✅ 2. Citizen’s Arrest Doctrine Is No Catch-All
Even when police try to argue they were acting as private individuals, the doctrine of citizen’s arrest only applies under narrow circumstances—and it almost never authorizes seizures of property.
✅ 3. No Backdoor via “Inevitable Discovery”
Courts will not presume that lawfully obtained warrants would have followed if the only reason the police had the evidence in the first place was an illegal act.
✅ 4. The Exclusionary Rule Is Alive and Well
Despite recent federal decisions narrowing the exclusionary rule, the Massachusetts SJC continues to enforce it strictly. Where police conduct violates statutory or constitutional boundaries, suppression remains the appropriate—and necessary—remedy.
Practical Applications
Defense lawyers should closely examine:
Where the police conducted any seizure or arrest. If it occurred outside their jurisdiction, ask: was there any statutory or mutual aid authority?
Whether a warrant was obtained after a questionable seizure, and whether it truly cured the illegality.
Whether police invoked “fresh pursuit” or “citizen’s arrest” doctrines inappropriately.
Commonwealth v. McCarthy adds teeth to the defense argument that geographic jurisdiction is not just a formality—it’s a constitutional guardrail.
Conclusion
The SJC’s ruling in Commonwealth v. McCarthy is a victory for constitutional boundaries and the integrity of Massachusetts criminal procedure. When Massachusetts officers operate outside their borders, they must play by the rules of the state they’re in—or risk having their evidence thrown out.
And more broadly, this case serves as a reminder that the law protects the rule of jurisdiction just as fiercely as it does the Fourth Amendment. A badge in Lowell does not carry power in Nashua. And when that line is crossed, suppression is not just fair—it’s essential.