Appeals panel reviews exit-order and frisk after motor-vehicle stop in impounded juvenile case
Loading...
Summary
In an impounded juvenile appeal, counsel challenged an officer’s exit order and subsequent frisk; defense urged passenger-specific suspicion and noted disputed body-cam findings, while the Commonwealth defended officer safety and reasonable suspicion. Court took the matter under advisement.
The panel next heard an impounded juvenile appeal challenging an exit order and a subsequent pat frisk after a motor vehicle stop. Youth counsel Joseph Schneiderman argued the trooper lacked passenger‑specific suspicion and that the motion judge’s factual findings — particularly about bulges observed on body camera — are clearly erroneous.
Schneiderman told the court that the body camera did not show the bulge the trooper described and that any extension of the stop to remove passengers was unsupported by officer testimony linking the knife to an immediate officer‑safety risk. "The only way that we even see a bulge is when trooper Tryon... grabs my client's waistband," he told the panel, arguing the record lacks the focused, corroborating facts required for a frisk.
Assistant District Attorney Lindsay Conkey for the Commonwealth replied that the stop involved multiple safety and investigative factors — speeding (85 mph), seven occupants for five seats, underage drinking, and a reported knife — and said those combined circumstances supported an exit order and a frisk. Conkey urged deference to the motion judge’s credibility findings and argued the totality of the circumstances justified officer action. The panel questioned counsel about inevitable discovery, bodycam review, and whether a jury could fairly assess drug/alcohol effects and safety risk. The court took the appeal under advisement.
