Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears challenge to stop, exit order and frisk after nearby gunfire
Summary
A defendant convicted after officers stopped a car near where shots were heard argued the stop and subsequent exit order and frisk violated Article 14 because officers lacked individualized suspicion; the Commonwealth says proximity, evasive driving, a single glove and physical evidence justified the measures.
A three‑justice panel heard competing accounts Thursday in Commonwealth v. Young over whether police may lawfully stop the first person they encounter after hearing gunfire and then order an exit and a frisk.
Daniel DeMaria, counsel for appellant Jonathan Young, told the court officers had “no suspect description, no vehicle description, no direction of travel, no observed criminal conduct” and argued officers relied only on proximity to the shots. DeMaria said those facts describe “a very large category of persons” and cannot meet Article 14’s requirement for particularized, individualized suspicion. He added that…
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
