Posts tagged "Jordan"

Commonwealth v. Jordan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-085-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-1251                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MICHAEL AARON JORDAN.[1]     No. 16-P-1251.   Suffolk.     May 9, 2017. – July 6, 2017.   Present:  Agnes, Massing, & Lemire, JJ.     Cellular Telephone.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Warrant, Affidavit.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause.  Search and Seizure, Warrant, Affidavit, Probable cause.  Probable Cause.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 20, 2015.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kenneth W. Salinger, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Robert J. Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court.     Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Lefteris K. Travayiakis for the defendant.     MASSING, J.  Ahmir Lee was shot to death on Boylston Street, near Copley Square in Boston, on the night of August 22, 2013.  The investigation of the murder focused on the defendant, Michael Aaron Jordan.  On December 30, 2013, the police obtained a search warrant directing the defendant’s cellular telephone service provider, Metro PCS (provider), to produce “records regarding cell site tower locations, call details, incoming/outgoing text messages, subscriber information, cell sites and GPS records” associated with the defendant’s telephone number for the six-week period surrounding the date of the homicide. About one year later, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the defendant with murder, G. L. c. 265, § 1, and carrying a firearm without a license, G. L. c. 269, § 10(a).  Acting on the defendant’s motion to suppress, a Superior Court judge entered an order suppressing all cell site location information (CSLI),[2] text messages, and contact information obtained from the provider.  The judge reasoned that the affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to establish probable cause that the defendant committed the murder or that any information from the defendant’s cellular telephone would provide evidence of the murder.  The judge denied the motion insofar as it sought the suppression of “subscriber information” and “call details,” noting that such information does not implicate constitutionally protected privacy interests.  The Commonwealth obtained leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal from the suppression order.  See Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996).  We affirm in part and reverse in part. Background.  Our […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 6, 2017 at 6:05 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Jordan (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-124-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11440   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  KOREY JORDAN (and a companion case[1]). Suffolk.     March 6, 2014. – July 14, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly,  & Lenk, JJ.     Practice, Criminal, Appeal, Appeal by Commonwealth, Interlocutory appeal, Motion to suppress.  Notice, Timeliness.  Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Time.  Appeals Court, Jurisdiction.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Firearms.  Evidence, Firearm.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Investigatory stop, Probable cause, Stop and frisk.  Probable Cause.  Threshold Police Inquiry.  Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Threshold police inquiry, Reasonable suspicion, Probable cause.       Complaints received and sworn to in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on April 28, 2009.   Following transfer to the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department, a pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Michael J. Coyne, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk.  After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Allison R. Callahan, Assistant District Attorney (Benjamin R. Megrian, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Dennis M. Toomey for Korey Jordan. Michael A. Contant for Bonnie S. Greene.     BOTSFORD, J.  This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the Commonwealth from an order of a Boston Municipal Court judge allowing the defendants’ motion to suppress.  The procedural history reflects that the Commonwealth’s notice of appeal was filed significantly late in the trial court, and its application to the single justice of this court for leave to appeal was filed significantly late in the county court.  In neither instance did the Commonwealth file a timely motion to enlarge the time for filing.  A single justice allowed the application, and the case was entered in the Appeals Court.  In an unpublished order, a panel of that court dismissed the appeal on a jurisdictional ground, believing that it had no authority to authorize the late-filed notice of appeal.  We granted the Commonwealth’s request for further appellate review.  For the reasons explained hereafter, we do not dismiss the appeal.  Rather, we affirm the order allowing the motion to suppress.  In addition, because there has sometimes been ambiguity in the manner in which the single justices of this court have […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 14, 2014 at 7:28 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,