It appears this ruling is based on the Massachusetts State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. States are allowed to have stronger protections against sear

It appears this ruling is based on the Massachusetts State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. States are allowed to have stronger protections against searches and seizures than what the 4th Amendment requires, and the U.S. Supreme Court (the only court above the MA Supreme Judicial Court) is unlikely to have the jurisdiction to interpret state constitutions. > "Although the defendant raised both federal and state constitutional claims in Almonor, the court based its decision solely on Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which was drafted before—and served as one of the models for—our federal Bill of Rights. Article 14, one of the cornerstones of the Massachusetts Constitution, is the state’s equivalent to the Fourth Amendment. As the court notes, it 'does, or may, afford more substantive protection to individuals than that which prevails under the Constitution of the United States.'" (From original article.) > "the U.S. Supreme Court may hear appeals from state supreme courts only if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Influence_of_the_federal_Supreme_Court_on_the_state_supreme_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Influence_...)