Failure to stop for police in Massachusetts is not a felony on its own. The statute that directly covers refusing to pull over, Chapter 90, Section 25 of the Massachusetts General Laws, carries a flat $100 fine with no jail time attached.1General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 25 The complication is that officers and prosecutors almost never charge Section 25 by itself. The driving behavior that leads someone to refuse a stop usually produces additional charges, and some of those charges are felonies that carry years in state prison.
What Section 25 Alone Covers
Section 25 makes it an offense to refuse or neglect to stop when signaled by a police officer who is in uniform or has a badge visibly displayed. The same statute covers refusing to give your name and address, giving false identifying information, and refusing to produce your license or registration. Every version carries the same penalty: a $100 fine.1General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 25 The statute does not create a misdemeanor and felony version. There is only the one fine.
On the identification requirement, Massachusetts courts read the statute more broadly than its text. An officer in an unmarked cruiser who flashed strobe lights and held up a badge was enough in Commonwealth v. Gray (1996). A siren, blue lights, and shouting “pull over” was enough in Commonwealth v. Ross (2008), even without displaying a badge.2Massachusetts Government. Massachusetts Criminal Model Jury Instructions 5.620 – Refusing to Obey / Giving False Name to Police Officer If an unmarked vehicle had its emergency lights on, that usually satisfies the element.
The Companion Charges That Can Make It a Felony
The felony exposure in a failure-to-stop case lives in the charges prosecutors stack on top of Section 25.
Reckless Operation
Fleeing from police while speeding, weaving, or running lights draws a reckless operation charge under Chapter 90, Section 24. The penalty is a fine of $20 to $200, imprisonment from two weeks to two years, or both.3General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Code Chapter 90 Section 24 – Driving Recklessly or Negligently This is the charge that most often turns a refused stop into a real criminal case.
Leaving the Scene After a Collision
If the chase ends in a crash, the penalties climb sharply. Leaving the scene after causing property damage carries the same range as reckless operation. Leaving the scene after injuring another person carries six months to two years of imprisonment plus a fine of $500 to $1,000.3General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Code Chapter 90 Section 24 – Driving Recklessly or Negligently
A fatal crash is where the clear felony exposure sits. A driver who flees after causing a death faces two and a half to ten years in state prison and a fine of $1,000 to $5,000.3General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Code Chapter 90 Section 24 – Driving Recklessly or Negligently A state prison sentence in Massachusetts marks the offense as a felony, with long-term consequences that include losing the right to obtain a firearms license.
Operating Under the Influence
If officers determine the driver was impaired, an OUI charge under Section 24 lands on top of the rest. A first-offense OUI can bring up to two and a half years in a house of correction and fines up to $5,000. Refusing a chemical test triggers its own automatic license suspension, and the fact of flight tends to get treated as consciousness of guilt at trial.
What Pushes Prosecutors Toward the Serious Charges
The underlying facts shape which companion charges a prosecutor files and how aggressively they pursue them. A high-speed chase is the most common aggravator. Dangerous speeds through populated areas make a reckless operation charge almost automatic and make a collision, with its heavier penalties, far more likely.
Passengers in play, particularly children, change the calculation. Erratic driving through a school zone with children present is the kind of fact pattern that leads to maximum penalties under every applicable statute.
History matters too. A first-time driver who panicked and drove another half-mile before pulling over is a very different case than a defendant with a record of similar conduct. Prior offenses can also prompt administrative license action through the RMV.4Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. Suspension Hearings Information
License and CDL Consequences
Section 25 by itself does not suspend your license, but a conviction on any of the companion charges can trigger a court-ordered suspension, and accumulating moving violations can prompt the RMV to suspend independently.4Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. Suspension Hearings Information Reinstatement requires a $100 fee and may require completing a driver retraining program.5Massachusetts Government. Out of State Suspensions and Revocations
CDL holders carry extra exposure. Under federal law, two serious traffic violations within three years disqualify the CDL for at least 60 days, and a third within the same window stretches that to at least 120 days.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 31310 – Disqualifications Reckless driving, the charge that typically rides along with a failure to stop, falls inside the federal definition of a serious violation.
Out-of-state drivers do not escape the consequences. Massachusetts reports convictions and suspensions to other states through the Driver License Compact and the Non-Resident Violator Compact, and suspensions are reported to the National Driver Register.7AAMVA. Driver License Compact Non-Resident Violator Compact8National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Driver Register Frequently Asked Questions Applying for a new license in another state will not clear a Massachusetts suspension.
Defenses That Can Keep the Case Small
The strongest defense usually targets the officer-identification element. If the officer was in plainclothes, in an unmarked vehicle, had no emergency lights activated, and never displayed a badge, the Commonwealth has a hard time proving you knew a police officer was signaling you. The courts have stretched the statute’s language, but there are limits. An officer honking and waving from a personal vehicle would not get there.
Another defense is lack of a safe opportunity to stop. If the signal came where stopping would have been dangerous, such as a highway on-ramp with no shoulder, continuing to the next safe location is not the same as refusing. What matters is that you acknowledged the signal and stopped as soon as it was safe.
Necessity applies in narrow situations. A driver rushing someone to the hospital, or someone who reasonably believed they were being followed by a police impersonator, may have a viable defense. Courts look at whether the belief was reasonable and whether less drastic choices were available. Driving to a well-lit public area before stopping is generally received more favorably than leading officers on a prolonged chase.