SJC in Commonwealth v. Santiago Declines to Embrace “Target Standing,” Setting a High Bar for Police Misconduct

February 4, 2015.

In Commonwealth v.Santiago, 470 Mass. 574 (2015), Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected an opportunity to embrace the theory of “target standing.” The target standing theory would have allowed a defendant to challenge evidence obtained from a third party if the police engaged in distinctly egregious conduct by violating the rights of a “little fish” in order to catch the “big fish.”

Our Take:

While the SJC did not see fit to recognize target standing in Santiago’s case, the Court took an important step forward by reinforcing the concept of “target standing” as necessary to deter police from tactically sacrificing the rights of the “little fish” in pursuit of evidence against the “big fish.” 

The Court’s decision, however, sets a seemingly high standard for applicability of the protection.  That is, for target standing to ever be applied, the police have to engage in “distinctly egregious” conduct that is a “significant violation” of a third party’s constitutional rights.  

My principal concern with the Court’s decision is the creation of a pliable standard, which calls for a trial court to draw lines between constitutional violations, defining one as egregious, the other less so. One wonders what the police would have to do to hit that “distinctly egregious” level, if stops and searches of citizens absent constitutional justification is not enough. 

In my view, the SJC should have taken a more robust stance by holding that the Court will not admit evidence obtained at the expense of any person’s civil liberties.