Upchurch failed to establish that he could not have obtained sufficient information to support a timely motion to suppress through either consultation with his attorney or by interviewing Officer Clinedinst. The public policy advanced by Code Sect. 19.2-266.2 is directly related to the provisions of Code Sect. However, this prohibition, if applied without exception, would deny review of erroneous trial court decisions suppressing evidence found to have been obtained in violation of the United States Constitution. These decisions involve significant constitutional protection and often determine the outcome of a criminal proceeding.
Appellate review serves to enhance the uniformity and legitimacy of such decisions.
Providing appellate review of these decisions, therefore, serves a legitimate governmental objective. Furthermore, because of its interlocutory nature, it does so while still preserving a criminal defendant's protection against being twice placed in jeopardy. The Commonwealth's right to appeal is an essential component in the process of correcting misapplications of the law. The Commonwealth may not appeal an erroneous suppression ruling after the jury is impaneled and sworn in a jury trial or evidence is received or the first witness is sworn in a non-jury trial. See Code Sect.