The appeals court on Tuesday heard argument in Commonwealth v. Hernandez over whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop.

Natalie Streca, representing the appellant, argued officers did not have sufficient independent corroboration of a confidential informant’s tip that narcotics were being transported from New York to Massachusetts in a specific vehicle. Streca told the panel the record lacks timing, location and linking details for a license‑plate photo and that RMV/CJIS returns did not reliably identify her client as the suspended Massachusetts licenseholder. "Beyond a date of birth and a name, there was no other information that would connect this particular individual named Alberto Hernandez to this suspension," she said.

Assistant Attorney General Emily Rothkin for the Commonwealth countered that police corroborated the tip with a controlled buy, repeated surveillance of the identical vehicle and the lead DEA investigator’s knowledge of prior hand‑to‑hand sales. Rothkin pointed to recorded observations, a license‑plate read (H07XHV), and multiple surveillance contacts as support for reasonable suspicion and, later, probable cause.

Justices questioned whether the stop was merely investigative based on the corroborated tip or whether the officers formed probable cause to arrest on a suspended‑license basis and whether actions such as towing, calling a K‑9, and inventory searches suggested pretext. The panel also discussed precedent including Ortiz and Feyenoord and whether the record supported findings about the officers’ subjective motive.

The court took the matter under advisement.