Massachusetts Top Cop Off the Hook for Secret Recording Program

The head of the Massachusetts State Police can’t be sued for an alleged program that secretly recorded officers’ phone conversations with civilians and used them to bring criminal charges, the First Circuit said Thursday.

A group of Massachusetts residents filed a putative class against against Superintendent Geoffrey Noble, as well as Motorola and other companies, over the secret recordings, which were used to propose criminal charges in at least 181 cases without prosecutors’ knowledge, the three judge panel said.

The opinion by Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said the residents, led by Jason Courtemanche, failed to show how they’d be directly injured by the recording program’s continued operation, beyond merely having general concerns about it. That lack of injury means they have no standing to sue, Aframe wrote, reversing the district court’s refusal to dismiss the suit.

Lawyers for the residents needed to show an allegation of future injury because their remaining claim against Noble was brought under the federal civil rights statute Section 1983, which authorizes suits against public officials for violations of clearly established law, the panel said.

Critically, courts have held that plaintiffs can seek only prospective relief under that law, because “sovereign immunity precludes retrospective remedies,” the opinion said.

“Nothing before us suggests that the plaintiffs are likely to be harmed in the future from the MSP’s record-and-withhold program,” said Aframe.

Circuit Judges Kermit Lipez and Jeffrey Howard joined the decision.

Motorola and its subsidiary Callyo 2009 Corp. have separately appealed the federal judge’s denial of their request to dismiss the case.

Representatives for the parties weren’t immediately available for comment Thursday.

Courtemanche is represented by Erik Bartenhagen of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Noble is represented by the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General and Morgan, Brown & Joy.

The case is Courtemanche v. Noble, 1st Cir., No. 25-1386, reversed 5/28/26.