Commonwealth v. Guaba

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• considering merits of Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal where, although Commonwealth’s notice of appeal in the trial court was filed late, rule’s time requirements were unclear and Commonwealth relied on erroneous advice of court clerk
• explaining and emphasizing that the date of entry of a court order is the date of the judge’s decision, not the date when received or the date of a notice supplied by the clerk
• documents describing items to be seized must be present at the search in order to meet particularity requirements
• “art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] implicitly requires law enforcement officials to possess a copy of the warrant when executing it”
• art. 14’s implicit requirement that warrant be present at search scene serves to guide police to permissible scope of search and to put occupant of premises on notice of authority to search and reasons for search
• “we hold art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] implicitly requires law enforcement officials to possess a copy of the warrant when executing it, unless there are exigent circumstances which would permit a warrantless search”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).