## Facts

- A Massachusetts State trooper stopped a vehicle on Interstate 290 in Auburn after observing it traveling in the left lane at the speed limit while the other lanes were open.
- The trooper observed the occupants were dark-skinned; the passenger, Andres Lora, is Hispanic.
- During the stop, the trooper saw a small plastic bag with white powder, removed the occupants from the vehicle, investigated the bag, and concluded it was cocaine.
- Officers searched the vehicle and found additional cocaine in the trunk; Lora was charged with cocaine trafficking.
- Lora moved to suppress the cocaine, claiming the stop resulted from racial profiling and thus violated the equal protection guarantee of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- Lora offered statistical proof using “census benchmarking,” comparing the trooper’s citation demographics on I-290 to the racial demographics of Auburn’s resident population.
- The Superior Court granted suppression, found racial profiling, and reaffirmed suppression after reconsideration despite the Commonwealth’s expert testimony that the census benchmark was scientifically unreliable because most cited drivers were not Auburn residents.
- The Commonwealth pursued an interlocutory appeal; the Supreme Judicial Court took the case on direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of racial profiling is relevant and admissible to prove selective enforcement violating Massachusetts equal protection in the context of a traffic stop.
2. Whether evidence obtained during a stop proved to be selective enforcement in violation of equal protection should be excluded.
3. Whether statistical evidence may satisfy a defendant’s initial burden to raise an inference of discriminatory effect and purpose sufficient to shift the burden to the Commonwealth to offer a race-neutral explanation.
4. Whether Lora’s statistical showing was sufficient to overcome the presumption that an officer acting with probable cause acted in good faith and without discriminatory intent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that racial-profiling evidence is relevant to whether a traffic stop was selective enforcement violating Massachusetts equal protection.
- The court held that evidence seized during a stop that violates equal protection should ordinarily be excluded at trial.
- The court held that statistical evidence may be used to meet a defendant’s initial burden to raise an inference of impermissible discrimination and shift the burden to the Commonwealth to provide a race-neutral explanation.
- The court concluded that Lora’s evidence, based on census benchmarking using Auburn’s residential demographics, was insufficient to create a reasonable inference of discrimination and did not rebut the presumption of good-faith enforcement.
- The court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Selective enforcement based on race can violate the equal protection guarantee of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights even if police had probable cause to believe a traffic infraction occurred.
- “Racial profiling” involves stopping or detaining based on broad criteria casting suspicion on a class of people, without individualized suspicion of the person stopped.
- When a stop is proved to be selective enforcement violating equal protection, the exclusionary rule ordinarily applies to evidence obtained as a result of the stop.
- A defendant bears an initial burden to produce credible evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose; if met, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to provide a race-neutral explanation.
- Courts presume that an officer making a traffic stop based on probable cause acted in good faith and without discriminatory intent; unreliable statistical methods may fail to rebut that presumption.
- Census benchmarking that uses a town’s residential demographics as a proxy for the driving population on a major highway may be inadequate, particularly where most cited drivers are nonresidents.

## Conclusion

The court recognized equal-protection challenges to racially selective traffic enforcement, allowed statistical proof and an exclusionary remedy in appropriate cases, but held that the defendant’s census-based statistics did not reliably show discriminatory enforcement and therefore did not justify suppressing the seized cocaine.


Commonwealth v. Lora, 451 Mass. 425, 886 N.E.2d 688 (Mass. 2008)