Motorola, Mass. State Police Hit with Privacy Lawsuit Over Alleged Secret Audio, Video Recordings

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit accuses the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) of working with Motorola for years to secretly and unconstitutionally record audio and video of state residents. 

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

In particular, the 19-page privacy lawsuit alleges the MSP has used Motorola “intercepting devices,” including the “10-21” and “bodybug,” to allow troopers to surreptitiously hear, record, or aid in the hearing or recording of the contents of wire and oral communications between state police officers and proposed class members, in violation of Massachusetts law and consumers’ civil rights. 

Motorola, for its part, “willfully procured” the MSP to intercept, or attempt to intercept, the wire and oral communications between the state police and consumers, the suit charges. 

In hundreds of cases, the filing says, the MSP illegally recorded Massachusetts citizens without obtaining warrants as required by law and then failed to turn over the recordings. The lawsuit claims that the MSP, in at least 181 “known situations,” filed criminal charges and failed to produce the secret audio recordings at issue, meaning the plaintiffs were unlawfully denied constitutional due process prior to the resolution of their cases. 

In cases involving criminal charges, proposed class members paid court costs, probation fees, and myriad other charges, or may have performed community service in lieu of payment, and lost property seized as result of the “egregious conduct” of the MSP, the lawsuit alleges. 

“While Plaintiffs have now discovered that these secret recordings have existed since approximately 2017, the existence of these secret recordings was not disclosed to Plaintiffs until March of 2023,” the complaint states, accusing the MSP of “intentionally circumvent[ing]” state warrant regulations to “escape legislative and judicial scrutiny.” 

According to the case, Motorola’s “10-21” and “bodybug” devices, when coupled with a cell phone, are able to transmit, receive, amplify and record oral communications. Per the suit, Motorola, in addition to equipping the MSP with these intercepting devices, has afforded the state police access to a database whereby they can store, review and share secret recordings. 

The four plaintiffs who filed the proposed class action lawsuit say neither they nor other Massachusetts residents consented to the interception and recording of their oral communications. After the plaintiffs first learned about the MSP’s alleged pattern and practice of non-consensual, warrantless audio and video recordings, the state police conducted an audit last spring and found that “[m]any of the recordings were made outside of legal parameters governing surreptitious audio recordings in Massachusetts,” the lawsuit states. 

Further, the MSP audit conceded that there was a “lack of an understanding among certain [State Police employees] about the responsibilities” of undercover or case officers pertaining to evidence identification and production stemming from communications captured via 10-21, bodybug and other devices, the filing shares. Overall, “most” MSP employees who used the Motorola intercepting devices “never received formal training on their use,” the lawsuit says. 

The case looks to cover all persons who were audio recorded, without their consent and without a warranty, by the Massachusetts State Police using Motorola intercepting devices. 

Named as defendants in the proposed class action are Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Colonel John E. Mawn, Jr., Interim Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.