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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 In an unpublished order, a panel of that court dismissed the appeal on a jurisdictional ground, believing that it had no authority to authorize the late-filed notice of appeal.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 […]