Commonwealth v. Giovanni Burgos.

── Commonwealth v. Giovanni Burgos. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-687 COMMONWEALTH vs. GIOVANNI BURGOS. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After the defendant, Giovanni Burgos, was charged with failing to identify himself to a police officer, various firearm and drug-related offenses, and a motor vehicle infraction, he moved to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle that he was driving at the time of his arrest. The defendant argued that the officers failed to follow the written Massachusetts State Police inventory and towing policies and that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was lawful. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion to suppress was denied.1 1The defendant filed an application to the single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court seeking leave to pursue an  Thereafter, the defendant entered into a conditional plea agreement, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 (b) (6), as appearing in 482 Mass. 1501 (2019), pleading guilty to possession of a firearm without a firearm identification (FID) card, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1); possession of ammunition without an FID card, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1); possession of a class B controlled substance, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 34; and possession of a class A controlled substance, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 34, while reserving his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress.2 We reverse. Background. We summarize the facts as they could have been found by the motion judge after an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, reserving certain facts for later discussion. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 343, 344 (2025). On July 24, 2020, at approximately 8 P.M., Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Scott Davis stopped a vehicle travelling above the speed limit on Interstate 391. Upon request, the defendant, who was driving the vehicle and was the sole interlocutory appeal from the motion judge's order. The application was denied. 2 The Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi on four other counts, and the defendant was found not responsible on one other count. 2 occupant, gave Sergeant Davis the vehicle's registration and verbally provided the name "George Cologne," a date of birth, and an address, telling Sergeant Davis that "he didn't have any ID on him." When Sergeant Davis reviewed the registry-generated picture of George Cologne on his laptop in his cruiser, he thought that there were "some discrepancies between what the [defendant] looked like and the picture." As a result, Sergeant Davis called the barracks "for another car, just for another set of eyes." While Sergeant Davis waited for another trooper to arrive, he asked the defendant questions about Cologne's criminal history to attempt to confirm his identity. Despite Cologne's