From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Commonwealth v. Lora
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
451 Mass. 425, 886 N.E.2d 688 (2008)
Andres Lora (defendant) was a passenger in a vehicle on Interstate Route 290 in Auburn, Massachusetts. Lora and the driver were stopped by state trooper Brendhan Shugrue for violating a traffic law that prohibited the use of the left lane if another lane was unoccupied. When Shugrue approached the vehicle, he noticed a small bag containing white powder inside the car. Shugrue ordered Lora and the driver to step out of the car and investigated the bag. Shugrue concluded the bag contained cocaine. Shugrue called another officer for assistance in searching the vehicle. The officers conducted a search and found cocaine in the trunk. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (plaintiff) charged Lora with trafficking cocaine. Lora filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, alleging that the search was unconstitutional because Shugrue had racially profiled Lora, who was Hispanic. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing, Lora introduced statistical support of his racial-profiling theory, using census-benchmarking analytics that compared the percentage of citations Shugrue had issued to each racial group while patrolling Route 290 with the racial demographics of Auburn. The results showed that Shugrue cited Hispanic drivers at a rate highly disproportionate to Auburn’s Hispanic population. The court found that Shugrue had racially profiled Lora and suppressed the cocaine. The commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, which the judge allowed. During the second hearing, the commonwealth called an expert who testified that census benchmarking was no longer accepted in the scientific community because it relied on the false premise that the demographic of drivers on a road was identical to the demographic of the town. The expert testified that 90 percent of the citations Shugrue issued did not involve Auburn residents. The judge affirmed the earlier suppression order. The commonwealth appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cordy, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 616,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.