• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Cyberlaw clinic logo

Cyberlaw Clinic

Pro bono legal services to clients at the intersection of technology and social justice

  • TEAM
  • PRACTICE
  • RESOURCES
  • CONTACT
  • BLOG
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Massachusetts High Court Issues Ruling in Online Racial Profiling Case

Clinic Staff · September 6, 2024 ·

Today, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (“SJC”) issued a ruling in Commonwealth v. Dilworth (SJC-13547), holding that the Boston Police Department violated the law by refusing to turn over evidence of potential online racial profiling. The decision is welcomed by the Cyberlaw Clinic, which previously represented Berkman Klein affiliates Michael Bennett and Zahra Stardust, along with the ACLU of Massachusetts and the Innocence Project, on an amicus brief in the case.

At issue was the Boston Police Department’s practice of creating fake social media profiles, “friending” social media users, and then searching those users’ posts for evidence. The defendant raised concerns that this practice was racially biased because police used predominantly black and brown profile avatars. Under Massachusetts law, police are required to disclose information that could demonstrate racially biased investigative practices, such as traffic stops and field interrogation and observation–more commonly known as “stop and frisk.” The Commonwealth argued that this standard did not apply to online investigations.

The SJC rejected the Commonwealth’s argument, holding that the same standard applies to any “alleged discriminatory policing in the investigatory phase of a case.” This includes “a claim that the police monitored social media accounts based on the target’s race or membership in another protected class.” The Court went on to hold that the police had no basis for withholding the names and profile avatars of the fake social media accounts it created. By nevertheless refusing to disclose that information, the police violated a valid discovery order. The consequence of that violation, the Court concluded, was that the charges against the defendant would be dismissed with prejudice.

The Cyberlaw Clinic is proud to have represented Drs. Bennett and Stardust, and worked with colleagues at the ACLU of Massachusetts and the Innocence Project, in supporting today’s decision. Clinical Instructors Mason Kortz and Wendy Chu would like to extend a special thanks to Spring 2024 Cyberlaw Clinic students Jane Boettcher, Angie Cui, and David Poole and teach fellow Isabel Sistachs for their incredible work on the brief.

Amicus, Surveillance

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcome. Content is for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Use of the site is not an invitation to enter into and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not convey information you regard as confidential unless a formal attorney-client relationship is established. Information received prior to establishment of such relationship will not be confidential.

Accessibility | Digital Accessibility

Cyberlaw Clinic

Copyright © 2025 · Monochrome Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in