Commonwealth v. Jordan
469 Mass. 134
| Mass. | 2014Background
- On April 25, 2009 a shooting occurred; two days later police located a rental Toyota Camry with the same plate and observed Korey Jordan, Bonnie Greene, and Phillip Jackson near the car; Jordan drove the Camry and was stopped shortly after driving away.
- Officers ordered all three out, performed frisks (no weapons found), and searched the Camry’s center console after noticing non-factory lines; a hidden firearm was exposed and the occupants were arrested.
- The motion judge held an evidentiary hearing and on November 16–17, 2010 allowed defendants’ motion to suppress, finding no probable cause for the stop or search.
- The Commonwealth filed a late notice of appeal in the trial court and a late application to a single justice for leave to appeal; the single justice allowed the application and reported the appeal to the Appeals Court without addressing timeliness.
- The Appeals Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the late notice of appeal; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review, considered both timeliness and the suppression ruling, and affirmed the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/timeliness of interlocutory appeal | Commonwealth: single justice’s allowance cured lateness; Appeals Court must reach merits | Defendants: notice and application were untimely; jurisdiction lacking | SJC: Appeals Court had authority to consider enlarging time, but lateness not excusing; nonetheless court reached merits and affirmed suppression |
| Authority to enlarge filing time | Commonwealth: single justice implicitly suspended time rules under Mass. R. A. P. 2 | Defendants: extensions must comply with Rule 15 and Appellate Rules; single justice did not show suspension | SJC: Single justice did not explicitly suspend rules; appellate courts and single justices do have authority under Rules 2 and 14(b) to extend/suspend within limits |
| Validity of stop, exit order, and console search | Commonwealth: stop justified by link to shooting (same plate, proximity, matching description, nervousness); search justified by officer safety or automobile exception/probable cause | Defendants: no adequate link/probable cause; nervousness and general description insufficient; search unlawful | SJC: Motion judge’s factual findings supported lack of probable cause; stop and subsequent search unjustified; suppression affirmed |
| Future procedure for Rule 15 applications | Commonwealth urged flexibility given practice | Defendants urged strict compliance with timing | SJC: Prescribed procedure: applicants must affirm timeliness or file motion to enlarge with detailed affidavit; single justices must resolve procedural motions before merits; appellate courts/single justices may act in previously-authorized pending appeals subject to limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bouvier, 399 Mass. 1002 (discussing that interlocutory appeals under G. L. c. 278, § 28E follow appellate rules)
- Commonwealth v. Guaba, 417 Mass. 746 (considering merits where notice late but rule confusion and clerk advice warranted review)
- Commonwealth v. Santana, 403 Mass. 167 (single justice explicitly treated timeliness issue at allowance hearing)
- Commonwealth v. White, 429 Mass. 258 (appellate court may enlarge time if notice filed within one year)
- Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 447 Mass. 631 (issues raised first on appeal need not be considered)
- Commonwealth v. Bacon, 381 Mass. 642 (suppression required when stop/search lack justification)
- Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 366 Mass. 277 (standard for allowing interlocutory appeal under Rule 15(a)(2))
- Commonwealth v. Motta, 424 Mass. 117 (deference to trial judge’s factual findings)
- Board of Health of Sturbridge v. Board of Health of Southbridge, 461 Mass. 548 (trial judge retains authority to extend filing time under Rule 4(c))