An appellate panel heard argument over whether a traffic stop in Taunton became unlawful after a trooper continued questioning a driver who produced a facially valid New Hampshire license and a Massachusetts registration and whether subsequent consent to search was voluntary.

The defense, Attorney Dave Rotundo for the appellant, told the court the trooper “received a facially valid New Hampshire license and registration” but then prolonged the encounter while the driver searched for proof of insurance. Rotundo said the recording shows “about 7 minutes” elapsed before the trooper asked about a bag and that during that time the driver “was not free to leave” and “was not informed that he had a right to refuse consent to search the bag.” He argued the delay and the context converted routine questioning into an investigatory detention and that consent was the product of a coercive environment rather than a voluntary waiver.

Bristol County assistant district attorney Rob Kidd told the panel the Commonwealth’s position is that the encounter produced consent. Kidd emphasized the officer observed the defendant looking toward a backpack and that, in the totality of circumstances — including the trooper’s observations on the video — the officer’s question about the bag was permissible. Kidd said the trooper had “the license, the registration, and the insurance information” and that what followed was not an unlawful extension but legitimate officer inquiry.

Why it matters: The case turns on lines of Massachusetts case law about the permissible temporal scope of a traffic stop and whether officers may pursue investigatory questioning about matters unrelated to the original traffic violation after the driver produces valid credentials. The outcome will affect when evidence discovered after a stop can be suppressed as the product of an unlawful detention.

Key facts and arguments
- The stop began for a traffic violation (officer testimony: headlights not on). The defendant produced a New Hampshire license and Massachusetts registration. Rotundo said the trooper told the defendant the insurance appeared expired and then sought additional documents.
- Defense: Rotundo argued the trooper should have returned to the cruiser to verify the credentials and, once the facially valid license and registration were produced, the officer’s further unrelated questioning about “where are you coming from,” “what’s in the bag,” and the defendant’s Uber work converted the stop into an investigative detention.
- Prosecution: Kidd argued the officer could act on what she observed and heard (including the defendant looking at a backpack) and that asking about the bag did not exceed the officer’s authority; the Commonwealth contends the defendant voluntarily consented.
- Video and body-worn camera evidence: Both sides acknowledged the camera footage does not show every visual detail; defense counsel stressed video shows a seven-minute interval before the bag question and argued that delay was unreasonable.

Quotations from the hearing (verbatim)
"Once she received the license and registration...that does not create an open ended window on unrelated questioning," Attorney Dave Rotundo said.
"There was no evidence that the defendant displayed any nervous behavior, evasive behavior, or other indication of any type of criminal intent," Rotundo told the panel when describing his view of the video.
"She had what she needed to run his license and registration when she at the moment she says, 'do you have anything good in the bag?'" a member of the panel asked during argument.

Court status and next steps
After argument, counsel stated their positions and the case was submitted to the panel. The panel did not issue a ruling at argument.

Clarifying details from the hearing
- The parties referenced roughly seven minutes between the production of documents and the officer’s bag question on the video recording. - The defendant said he drove for Uber and lived in New Hampshire; counsel referenced a 70-mile distance comment in argument. - The vehicle stop was for a headlight infraction; the officer observed an insurance card she believed was expired.

Speakers (from the argument record)
- Dave Rotundo — Defense attorney for Escalante (private counsel)
- Rob Kidd — Bristol County District Attorney’s Office (government prosecutor)
- Judge Han — member of the appellate panel (government)
- Judge Brennan — member of the appellate panel (government)
- Presiding justice (unnamed in transcript) — member of the appellate panel (government)

Authorities cited at argument (court cases)
- Commonwealth v. Torres — cited in argument concerning scope of questioning after documents produced
- Commonwealth v. Bartlett (1996) — cited by counsel regarding investigatory conversation after production of documents
- Commonwealth v. Ortiz (SJC, 02/2018) — cited by counsel on consent doctrine

Searchable tags: criminal procedure, traffic stop, search and seizure, suppression, Bristol County, New Hampshire license