{"id":218757,"date":"2025-12-11T09:58:27","date_gmt":"2025-12-11T14:58:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/?post_type=case&p=218757"},"modified":"2025-12-11T09:58:27","modified_gmt":"2025-12-11T14:58:27","slug":"commonwealth-v-jose-arias","status":"publish","type":"case","link":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias","title":{"rendered":"Commonwealth v. Jose Arias"},"menu_order":0,"template":"","supreme_court_term":[],"court":[],"class_list":["post-218757","case","type-case","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":{"case_number":"","featured_image":"","issues":[46391],"court_type":"state_supreme_court","case_type":false,"supreme_court_term":null,"state_territory_affiliate":[338],"status":"ongoing","date_updated":"20251211","whats_at_stake":"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case. ","call_to_action":null,"summary":"Officers from Boston\u2019s Drug Control Unit (\u201cDCU\u201d) followed the Appellant, Jose Arias, in an unmarked vehicle for approximately six miles, during which they observed him make an improper left turn\u2014a traffic violation for which he was never cited. The next day <\/i>a different DCU officer called for a marked police car to pull Arias over based on the previous day\u2019s improper turn. Over the police radio, the DCU officer made clear that the alleged traffic violation was not the true basis for the stop: \u201cwe\u2019re looking to stop a vehicle for [a] drug investigation.\u201d Arias contends that when the marked cruiser activated its lights and sirens, he attempted to turn off the busy road so that he could pull over on a different street, but before he could do so, another police car pulled in front of him, blocking his path. Officers then ordered him out of the vehicle, conducted a pat-frisk, discovered unlawful substances, and arrested him for \u201cpossessing\/concealing\u201d drugs. \r\n\r\nArias moved to suppress the substances discovered during the stop, arguing that the stop and search was unlawful because DCU officers lacked \u201creasonable suspicion.\u201d One and a half years after arresting Arias, the Commonwealth claimed\u2014for the first time\u2014that the arrest and search were permissible under G.L. c. 90 \u00a7 21 because Arias had allegedly neglected to stop when requested. The Superior Court found that Arias\u2019 unlawful left turn served as pretext for the stop and the real reason for the stop was to pursue a drug investigation. But the Superior Court held that the pretextual stop did not violate the Massachusetts Constitution and that the arrest was supported by the neglect-to-stop allegation. \r\n\r\nOur brief makes three main points: (1) Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not permit pretextual stops, (2) statutorily-authorized arrests for fine-only misdemeanors, absent a breach of the peace, are unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional under Article 14, and (3) G.L. c. 90 \u00a7 25 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case. \r\n\r\nThe brief explains that arresting someone for a misdemeanor not involving a breach of the peace is unreasonable. And because Article 14 has long been recognized as affording greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, this case provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify that Article 14 prohibits all <\/i>arrests for misdemeanors absent a breach of the peace, even statutorily-authorized arrests. Our brief further argues that G.L. c. 90, \u00a7 25\u2014the statute under which Mr. Arias was arrested\u2014is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case because it fails to adequately define what constitutes a \u201cneglect to stop.\u201d And because G.L. c. 90 \u00a7 21 permits an arrest for a \u00a7 25 violation\u2014even absent a breach of the peace\u2014these statutes together effectively grant police unfettered discretion to stop, arrest, and search anyone for virtually any reason. ","case_decision":"","featured_case":false,"legal_project":"","date_filed":null,"administration_challenged":"","constitutional_principle":["Fourth Amendment"],"drupal_node_id":"","legal_documents":[{"court":2058,"documents":[{"document_options":"document","document":218758,"title":"ACLU and ACLU-MA Amicus Brief","subtitle":"","date_filed":"20251121","drupal_node_id":"","slug":"","child_documents":null}]}],"plaintiffs":"","co-counsel":"","press_releases_related_to_cases":"","related_content_cases":"","related_content_documents":"","related_content_publications":""},"yoast_head":"\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commonwealth v. Jose Arias | American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@aclu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias\",\"name\":\"Commonwealth v. Jose Arias | American Civil Liberties Union\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-11T14:58:27+00:00\",\"description\":\"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/\",\"name\":\"American Civil Liberties Union\",\"description\":\"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commonwealth v. Jose Arias | American Civil Liberties Union","og_description":"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias","og_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@aclu","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias","name":"Commonwealth v. Jose Arias | American Civil Liberties Union","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-12-11T14:58:27+00:00","description":"This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias\u2019s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/commonwealth-v-jose-arias"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/","name":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.","inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/218757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/case"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/218757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":218759,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/218757\/revisions\/218759"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affiliate_info\/338"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"supreme_court_term","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme_court_term?post=218757"},{"taxonomy":"court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/court?post=218757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}