It is clear, even accepting the facts related in the police report, that the police effectuated a seizure of the defendant and a subsequent search, based upon supposition only, without probable cause or objectively reasonable suspicion.
     Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution, provides broader protection against seizures than does the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Compare *Commonwealth v. Soute, * 422 Mass. 782, 665 N.E.2d 93 (1996) and *California v. Hadari D., * 499 U.S. 621 (1991).  Under Massachusetts law a seizure occurs when pursuit begins.  “Pursuit that appears designed to effect a stop is no less intrusive than a stop itself.”
*Commonwealth v. Stoute,* 422 Mass. at 788, 789, quoting from *Commonwealth v. Thibeau, *384 Mass. 762 at 764 (1981).
     There is no bright line definition of when the pursuit or seizure begins, and not every police/civilian encounter constitutes an intrusion requiring justification to satisfy constitutional requirements.  However, Massachusetts Courts have followed an analysis that provides that a person
is seized if a reasonable person would have believed, in view of all the circumstances, that he or she was not free to leave.  * Commonwealth v. Borges,* 395 Mass. 788 (1985).  This standard was reaffirmed recently in *Commonwealth v. Stoute,* supra, where the Supreme Judicial Court rejected the opportunity
to align Article 14 protection with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment determination that pursuit does not trigger the exclusion of evidence obtained before the officer actually lays hand on the defendant.
  The court found that Tarvin “doesn’t weave out of a lane, he’s within a lane. Driving a car, in and of itself, has to be — I mean, is a controlled weaving. . . .” The record contains evidence that Tarvin either drove on or over the right-hand white line. There is no evidence that he ever drove into another lane of traffic or did more than go “a little bit worse than over” the white line. When asked whether Tarvin’s tires ever actually crossed entirely over the white line, Hill stated that on two occasions it was “a
little bit worse than over,” but stated that he couldn’t give an exact measurement. The terms “cross ” and “over” were never clarified, but it is clear that the dispute regarded the white line.