Commonwealth v. Vihaan V., 2026 Mass. App. LEXIS 109 (Mass. Ct. App. 2026)

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals reversed an adjudication of firearm possession because the Commonwealth failed to establish the police had reasonable suspicion that the youth was armed and dangerous to justify the frisk.

The court stated in relevant part:

Neither of the police witnesses who testified at the suppression hearing articulated any basis for believing that the juvenile was armed and dangerous. Indeed, Officer Ryan testified that the juvenile “was pretty calm; he didn’t act in any particular way that was kind of alarming.” Thus the police did not articulate, and the judge did not find, any facts to support a reasonable suspicion that the juvenile was armed. . . . The mere fact that the juvenile was sitting in the Honda with the back seat passenger, whose clothing matched a description given by the caller, did not amount to reasonable suspicion that the juvenile was armed and dangerous. Cf. Commonwealth v. Demos D., 497 Mass. 78, 85-86 (2026) (that juvenile was in car with known gang associate added only “minimally” to reasonable suspicion calculus). . . . We conclude that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden to justify a patfrisk of the juvenile because it did not show that the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the juvenile was armed and dangerous, and therefore the firearm and ammunition should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the adjudications of delinquency are reversed, the findings of delinquency are set aside, and the complaint shall be dismissed.