The appeals court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Lara over whether evidence before the jury permitted the conviction on ignition‑interlock related charges and whether law‑enforcement conduct in the stop and suppression rulings was supported by individualized suspicion.

John Maddox, representing Kevin Lara, urged the panel that an RMV printout entered into evidence—showing the license as "suspended" on the print date nine days after the incident—created ambiguity about whether the restriction existed at the time of the offense and therefore implicated the statutory framework controlling ignition‑interlock violations. Maddox argued the jury was not shown the full booking video or other record evidence that would have clarified timing and that absence created speculative inferences.

Justices questioned whether the RMV printout and other material could be credited or discredited by jurors under the standard of review; they also pressed whether the defense had an obligation to produce additional evidence once the issue was raised.

Jessica Langsam, for the Commonwealth, argued the officer testimony, the breath‑test form and witness statements together supported the trial court’s findings, and that the motor‑vehicle infractions and observed damage gave officers a lawful basis to stop the vehicle. She defended the trial court’s denial of relief.

Counsel also debated whether detective conduct during the stop and the sequence of events established reasonable suspicion for the stop; no disposition was announced from the bench and the court took the appeal under advisement.