Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court considers whether pat frisk of juvenile met ‘specific and articulable facts’ standard
Summary
Defense counsel argued the pat frisk of the juvenile was unlawful because officers lacked the specific and articulable facts Article 14 requires; the Commonwealth said the totality of circumstances — targeted patrol, prior firearms contacts and the juvenile’s atypical behavior — justified a frisk.
Joseph Schneiderman, representing the youth appellant, told the court that the Commonwealth relied on labels and isolated prior arrests instead of specific, articulable facts required to justify a pat frisk. Schneiderman argued officers’ testimony described the youth simply looking away, touching a nearby car, or holding a shoulder/fanny pack; there was no evidence of a bulge, weapon, secretive motion, waistband adjustments, or…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
