In the Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010

Petitioner, a Boston police officer, filed an application for a criminal complaint in West Roxbury BMC alleging her supervisor (the respondent) committed assault and battery.
A BMC clerk‑magistrate denied the application for lack of probable cause; petitioner sought reconsideration and change of venue.
The application was transferred sequentially (Charlestown BMC, then after delay to Dedham District Court) and ultimately a District Court clerk‑magistrate again denied the application for lack of probable cause.
Petitioner filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition seeking (1) a rehearing of her application and (2) a supervisory ruling that complaints against police officers must be heard initially by a judge outside the officer’s jurisdiction (not by a clerk‑magistrate).
The single justice denied relief without a hearing; the SJC reviews only for abuse of discretion or error of law and affirmed.
The court noted lengthy and troubling delays in processing but held petitioner lacked a judicially cognizable interest to compel prosecution and failed to show systemic bias requiring extraordinary supervisory relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner may obtain a rehearing of a clerk‑magistrate's denial of a criminal complaint via G. L. c. 211, § 3	Brooks argued she was entitled to extraordinary relief to obtain rehearing after clerk‑magistrate denials	Respondent argued petitioner lacked standing to compel prosecution and had ordinary remedies (rehearing by a judge in the same court)	Denied — private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in prosecution; applicant's remedy is rehearing by a judge in the court, not § 3 relief
Whether courts must adopt a categorical rule that complaints against police officers be heard initially by an out‑of‑jurisdiction judge rather than a clerk‑magistrate	Petitioner argued close working relationships between police and clerk‑magistrates create systemic bias, requiring a rule to protect fairness and perception of justice	Respondent argued no systemic bias shown and existing safeguards (rehearing by judge; District Court standards) suffice	Denied — no demonstrated systemic concern; existing procedures adequate; no exercise of broad superintendence warranted

Ellis, Petitioner v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1020 (2011) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution)
Hagen v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 374 (2002) (no judicially cognizable interest in prosecution)
Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748 (1998) (declining review of refusals to issue complaints; judges may rehear clerk‑magistrate denials)
Victory Distributors, Inc. v. Ayer Division of the District Court Department, 435 Mass. 136 (2001) (private party’s rights in complaint process limited to filing application and court action thereon)
Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310 (2002) (judges have authority to rehear clerk‑magistrate denials)
Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 471 Mass. 465 (2015) (exercise of superintendence appropriate where misconduct is widespread and systemic)