SJC Sends Peabody Drug Surveillance Case Back To Lower Court

PEABODY, MA — A May 2018 bust that broke up a North Shore drug ring may have stemmed from illegal surveillance by police and DEA agents, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday.

"Without the need to obtain a warrant, investigators could use pole cameras to target any home, at any time, for any reason," the SJC said in Thursday's ruling. "In such a society, the traditional security of the home would be of little worth, and the associational and expressive freedoms it protects would be in peril."

The court was asked to rule on whether investigators should have obtained warrants before installing video cameras on utility poles and trained them on Swampscott Avenue home in Peabody and four locations in Lynn. Evidence from those cameras was used to build probably cause for the bust, which ended with the arrests of 13 people and the seizure of more than two pounds of heroin and fentanyl and 2,400 oxycodone pills, as well as $415,000 in cash.

Randy Suarez and Lymbel Guerrero of Peabody and Nelson Mora of Lynn, who are awaiting trial in the case, filed the challenge. They argue investigators should have obtained a warrant for the cameras in the same way they would obtain a warrant for a phone tap. Courts have previously ruled that warrants are not needed for surveillance in public places.

A Superior Court judge ruled in an October 2019 motion hearing that the pole cameras did not violate the defendants' "reasonable expectation[s] of privacy."

Wednesday's SJC ruling sends the case back to the superior court, which will have to decide whether police had probable cause when the cameras were first installed. The first camera was installed in late 20117. The cameras were constantly recording until May 23, 2018, when the suspects were arrested. In March 2018 the investigators got warrants for other forms of surveillance, including cell phone wire taps and GPS tracking.

The court deliberately avoided addressing whether the surveillance fell under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and instead looked at the question of "reasonable expectation of privacy" in terms of Article 14 of the state constitution.

"Protecting the home from arbitrary government invasion always has been a central aim of both art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment," the SJC said in its ruling. "[T]argeted long-term pole camera surveillance of the area surrounding a residence has the capacity to invade the security of the home...If the home is a 'castle,' a home that is subject to continuous, targeted surveillance is a castle under siege. Although its walls may never be breached, its inhabitants certainly could not call themselves secure."

Dave Copeland covers Peabody and other North Shore communities for Patch. He can be reached at dave.copeland@patch.com or by calling 617-433-7851. Follow him on Twitter (@CopeWrites) and Facebook (/copewrites).