Supreme Judicial Court hears appeal over whether troopers' body cameras violated wiretap statute

The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Scott Grimaldi over whether state troopers' use of body-worn cameras at an OUI checkpoint violated the state wiretap statute. Attorneys for the Commonwealth and for Mr. Grimaldi disputed whether the combination of posted signage, visible camera devices and red indicator lights gave the defendant knowledge that audio was being recorded, and whether officers' alleged failures to follow departmental policy demonstrated a willful, secret interception.

Attorney Travis Lynch, arguing for the Commonwealth, told the court that the cameras and posted warning signs made the recording non-secret and therefore outside the statute's reach. "There's no secret recording here," Lynch said, and he pointed the court to video he said showed the defendant looking at a trooper holding a camera. Lynch urged the justices to consider the videos themselves and the officers' testimony that the cameras displayed red lights while recording.

Defense counsel Kyle D'Souza said policy noncompliance showed willfulness and emphasized the officers' awareness of Mr. Grimaldi's vulnerability. D'Souza summarized how trooper Medina observed Mr. Grimaldi approaching the checkpoint at speed and that a semi-trailer blocked the posted sign, leading officers to conclude the driver "obviously doesn't pay attention to signs." D'Souza argued those facts, combined with testimony that officers did not orally notify the defendant as the policy directs, were "significant evidence of willfulness." He added that officers "understood that he didn't know" and "they never notified."

The justices explored several legal strands. One line of questioning probed whether the defendant must have had subjective, actual knowledge of the recording or whether objective manifestations (signage, visible cameras, red lights) permit an inference of knowledge. Counsel and the bench debated precedents cited in the briefs, including Jackson, Hyde, Boyarski, Ennis and Rivera, about how courts treat notice and secrecy for purposes of the wiretap statute. Lynch emphasized that the statute itself makes no reference to departmental body-worn-camera policies and urged de novo review of the video evidence; "You should review the video de novo," he told the court.

A justice raised the practical and historical tension between a 20th-century wiretap statute aimed at surreptitious "bugs" and modern body-worn camera technology, asking whether the same statutory language should be read to cover visible police recording devices. Counsel for both sides acknowledged that the analysis turns on video and testimonial details: whether the sign was visible to the approaching driver (some testimony described a truck blocking the sign) and whether the red lights and camera placement were objectively understandable by a member of the public.

Oral argument concluded with counsel resting on their briefs; no ruling is recorded in the transcript. The court did not announce a decision during the session recorded here. The justices will resolve how to apply the wiretap statute's secrecy and willfulness tests to body-worn camera recordings in a written opinion to follow.