Appeals Court Ruling Okays Emergency Use of Cell Tower Data

BOSTON, July 27, 2018—The Massachusetts Appeals Court today found that Boston Police were justified in using real-time cell site location information to interrupt a woman’s specific threats to shoot an intimate partner, setting the stage for her trial on firearms charges, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

The appeal by TAKII RASPBERRY, 39, challenged a judge’s earlier decision denying her motion to suppress a loaded handgun and other evidence from a case pending in Roxbury Municipal Court. In a 19-page decision, the Appeals Court rejected that appeal, finding that the use of her cell tower records to locate her was justified under the emergency circumstances and that the subsequent search of her vehicle was reasonable.

“If investigators hadn’t acted rapidly to locate the defendant, she could very well be facing a murder charge instead of a gun charge,” Conley said. “The officers’ steps were eminently reasonable, the motion judge’s decision was appropriate, and the Appeals Court clearly reached the right conclusion in affirming it.

Raspberry is charged in Roxbury Municipal Court with carrying a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, carrying a loaded firearm, and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle for the April 14, 2015, incident. Prosecutors said she was found in possession of a Taurus PT145 Millenium Pro handgun, 10 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition, and a stun gun after she allegedly made statements that she intended to shoot another individual during a phone call with a person who was the target of a federal wiretap.

A judge in the Suffolk County Gun Court denied Raspberry’s motion to suppress the weapons as the fruit of an unconstitutional search. In her appeal of that decision, Raspberry argued that police did not meet the standard necessary to obtain cell site location information from her phone carrier without a search warrant. An Appeals Court panel, however, sided with prosecutors and found that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement had been met.

“We have no difficulty concluding that these standards were met here,” Justice Peter Sacks wrote in the decision. “The police overheard a phone call in which an angry, upset individual said she was ‘going to get the . . . gun’ and was ‘about to go shoot up [someone] right now . . . . I’m going to his, I’m going right there, right now.’ The police identified the person making the threat as the defendant and thus inferred that she was likely talking about shooting [the intended target]. The judge, after listening to a recording of the call, found that ‘the police were reasonable in having grave concerns about the defendant imminently causing serious bodily harm,’ and we see no basis for rejecting that finding.”

In April 2015, Raspberry allegedly made statements during a phone call that she intended to shoot another individual, who was later determined to be a former romantic partner. The person on the other end of the phone call was the target of a federal court warrant authorizing a wiretap, and the call was monitored and recorded by Boston Police. Upon hearing the threats, Boston Police made an emergency request to obtain cell site location information from Raspberry’s phone service provider. They received location information that showed Raspberry traveling from her home in Braintree to the immediate area of a Roxbury address where the intended target was believed to be.

Once there, Raspberry called the target of the wiretap and allegedly made additional incriminating statements. Boston Police stopped her vehicle, seized the weapons inside, and placed her under arrest.

Assistant District Attorney Cailin Campbell of the DA’s Appellate Unit argued the motion on appeal. Assistant District Attorney AlexaRae Wright of the DA’s Gang Unit is the assigned trial prosecutor. Raspberry was represented by Timothy St. Lawrence. She will return to Roxbury Municipal Court at a later date.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.