Case: Courtemanche v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.

4:24-cv-40030 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: Feb. 22, 2024

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a class action lawsuit seeking monetary relief to remedy the Massachusetts State Police practice of secretly recording state residents. On February 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Motorola Solutions and the Interim Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sought damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf…

This is a class action lawsuit seeking monetary relief to remedy the Massachusetts State Police practice of secretly recording state residents. On February 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Motorola Solutions and the Interim Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sought damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of “[a]ll persons who were audio recorded, without their consent and without a warrant, by the Massachusetts State Police using Motorola intercepting devices.” Plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute. 

Plaintiffs claimed that Motorola, a video and telecommunications service provider, acted under color of state law in conspiring with the Massachusetts State Police to surreptitiously record plaintiffs’ private communications. The complaint alleges that Motorola refused to modify its intercepting devices to not record by default, despite knowing that these devices would not comply with the state wiretap law. Plaintiffs also claimed that the Massachusetts State Police used evidence obtained from the secret audio recordings to conduct additional investigations, failing to comply with the warrant requirements of the wiretap statute and the Fourth Amendment. The police department also maintained a database of these recordings, but allegedly failed to produce them for use as exculpatory evidence at trial. 

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy. 

As of March 24, 2024, this case is ongoing. 

 

Summary Authors

Grayson Metzger (3/24/2024)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

4:24-cv-40030

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Feb. 22, 2024

Feb. 22, 2024

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68275213/courtemanche-v-motorola-solutions-inc/

Last updated March 24, 2024, 1:46 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-10282151 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Jason Courtemanche, Brett Foresman, Juan Rios, Dennis Williams. (Attachments: # 1 complaint)(O'Connor, James) Modified text on 2/23/2024 (Barrows, Jennifer). (Entered: 02/22/2024)

Feb. 22, 2024

Feb. 22, 2024

Clearinghouse
2

NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher R. Batinsey on behalf of Jason Courtemanche, Brett Foresman, Juan Rios, Dennis Williams (Batinsey, Christopher) (Entered: 02/22/2024)

Feb. 22, 2024

Feb. 22, 2024

PACER
3

NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Barrows, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/23/2024)

Feb. 23, 2024

Feb. 23, 2024

PACER

Notice - Other

Feb. 23, 2024

Feb. 23, 2024

PACER

Notice of Case Assignment to a Magistrate Judge

Feb. 23, 2024

Feb. 23, 2024

PACER
4

ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: re 1 Complaint. Counsel shall complete and file in PDF format a Civil Cover Sheet and Category Form. The forms can be found on the court's website under Resources/Forms. Counsel will use the event under Other Documents- Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet. (Barrows, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/23/2024)

Feb. 23, 2024

Feb. 23, 2024

PACER
5

Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Barrows, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/23/2024)

Feb. 23, 2024

Feb. 23, 2024

PACER
6

Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet by Jason Courtemanche, Brett Foresman, Juan Rios, Dennis Williams. (O'Connor, James) (Entered: 02/23/2024)

Feb. 23, 2024

Feb. 23, 2024

PACER
7

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 28, 2024

Feb. 28, 2024

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 22, 2024

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All persons who were audio recorded, without their consent and without a warrant, by the Massachusetts State Police using Motorola intercepting devices.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

Motorola Solutions Inc. (- United States (national) -), Private Entity/Person

State of Massachusetts, State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Records Disclosure