Court Opinion

ID: 9715336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:00:44.472158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:30.093473
License: Public Domain

Abrams, J.
(dissenting, with whom O’Connor and Greaney, JJ., join). General Laws c. 265, § 25, punishes “any police officer or person having the powers of a police officer . . . who verbally or by written communication maliciously and unlawfully uses or threatens to use against another the power or authority vested in him . . . with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will” (emphasis added). Instead of merely prohibiting abuse of a police officer’s vested power, the Legislature specifically chose to target the abuse of his or her power or authority. A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that “[wherever possible, we give meaning to each word in the legislation; no word in a statute should be considered superfluous.” International Org. of Masters v. Wood’s Hole, Martha’s Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth., 392 Mass. 811, 813 (1984). Furthermore, “the word ‘or’ in its ordinary use and also in accurate meaning is a disjunctive particle. It marks an alternative and not a conjunctive. It indicates one or the other of two or several persons, things or situations and not a combination of them.” Gaynor’s Case, 217 Mass. 86, 90 (1914). The court fails to consider the distinction between power and authority, or neglects to follow our rule of interpretation. The Legislature generally does not include superfluous language in a statute.
Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary (2d ed. 1957) provides four definitions of “authority,” two of which are relevant to c. 265, § 25. The first definition is “[ljegal or rightful power, a right to command or to act; power exercised by a person in virtue of his office or trust; dominion; jurisdiction; authorization.” Id. at 186. This definition is basically synonymous with the court’s definition of power. Authority, in this sense, *289means actual authority, or a legal right to act. The second relevant definition is “[p]ower derived from opinion, respect or esteem; influence of character, office, or station, or mental or moral superiority, and the like; claim to be believed or obeyed.” Id. Unlike the first definition, this second meaning of “authority” does not depend on an actual right to act; it is derived instead from a claim to have a right to act, or from the respect or esteem conferred by others. The extent of this kind of authority is not determined by law, it is determined by the willingness of others to believe or to obey the one claiming the authority.
I can discern no plausible distinction between the first definition of authority, and the meaning of the word “power” as used by the court.1 Because we do not assume that the Legislature used superfluous language, it seems obvious that the Legislature must have intended the second definition of authority. I conclude that the “power” referred to in the statute means actual, de jure power, while “authority” means both actual and apparent authority.2
*290That the Legislature intended a distinction between power and authority is evident from an examination of the rest of the provision. The statute applies to “any police officer or person having the powers of a police officer.” In this clause, the Legislature chose to use only the word “power,” omitting any reference to “authority.” Therefore, the natural reading of this provision is that it applies to persons with the actual power of a police officer — such as certain university security personnel — but it does not apply to persons with only apparent authority — such as civilians unlawfully in an officer’s uniform. Rather than lumping a single concept into the phrase “power or authority,” the Legislature assigned a distinct meaning to each word, and used both words when it intended a broader meaning and only one of them when it wanted to narrow the scope.
At common law, “it is extortion ... to receive, by colour of office, a fee before it is due.” Commonwealth v. Bagley, 7 Pick. 279, 281 (1828). We have long recognized that “a statute should not be interpreted as being at odds with the common law ‘unless the intent to alter it is clearly expressed.’ ” Commonwealth v. Burke, 392 Mass. 688, 690 (1984), quoting Commonwealth v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 495, 514 (1830). Here, the fair and natural interpretation of the phrase “power or authority” in G. L. c. 265, § 25, is in accordance with the common law term “by color of office.” Only by ignoring the statutory language is the court able to narrow the statute from its common law origins. In the absence of any clear evidence that the Legislature intended such a break with the common law, I would not infer such a change. See Adler v. Sheriff, Clark County, 92 Nev. 641, 643 (1976) (statute punishing a public officer who demands compensation “for his official service” interpreted to encompass a demand *291“under color of office” because of no apparent legislative intent to alter common law definition).
I interpret G. L. c. 265, § 25, to prohibit police officers from using or threatening to use the actual power or apparent authority vested in them to compel any person to act against his or her will. Thus, Kerr’s conviction should stand. The authority that Kerr exerted over Sullivan was not derived from a legally conferred power; it was derived from the authority of the uniform and the badge as well as the respect most citizens confer on a police officer. It was reasonable for Sullivan to believe that Kerr had the authority to arrest him if he did not obey Kerr’s commands. Because there was sufficient evidence from which the judge could have found that Kerr threatened to use his police (apparent) authority against Sullivan if the latter did not turn over his keys, I would affirm the conviction and the Superior Court judge’s denial of the motion for a required finding of not guilty.

The court asserts that “[t]he statute is clear on its face that an officer must threaten to use a power or authority that is actually vested in him, a threat that he actually has the power to carry out. If the officer does not in fact have the power which he threatens to use, then under the plain meaning of the statute, he is not guilty of a violation.” Ante at 286.

The fact that the statute requires the power or authority to be “vested” does not detract from this conclusion. The verb “to vest,” according to Webster’s, means “[t]o clothe (with authority, power, or the like).” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 948 (2d ed. 1953). A police officer certainly can be “clothed” with apparent authority even though he or she may not actually possess a de jure power. The authority may be vested or clothed by virtue of a badge or uniform, see G. L. c. 41, § 98 (police officers may carry authorized weapons within the Commonwealth); c. 41, § 98C (police officers required to wear badge, tag or label with identification number or name), and the public is required to defer to that authority, see G. L. c. 90, § 21 (police officer authorized to make an arrest may arrest motor vehicle operators whose licenses have been revoked provided that officer is in uniform or displaying badge); G. L. c. 90, § 25 (any person who refuses to stop automobile when signalled by a police officer in uniform or conspicuously displaying badge shall be punished); G. L. c. 89, § 7A (no person may obstruct police vehicles or vehicles bearing official police department designation at or on the way to a fire); G. L. c. 89, § 7B (police vehicle responding to emergency may drive in excess of speed *290limit). Indeed, in some cases, we require submission to a police officer’s apparent authority even if he or she does not possess actual power. See Commonwealth v. Moreira, 388 Mass. 596 (1983) (a person must submit to an arrest accomplished without excessive force by a police officer even if the arrest is unlawful). Therefore, it is clear that police may be vested with apparent authority as well as actual power.