The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in SJC-13779 over whether police may order a missing juvenile out of a vehicle and perform a pat frisk as part of the officer's community caretaking function.

“The Commonwealth argues that consistent with the officer's community caretaking function, the exit order and pat frisk in this case were reasonable, and the motion to suppress should have been denied,” Attorney Jennifer Cohen told the court for the Commonwealth.

The motion judge below found that officers had issued an exit order and subjected the juvenile to a pat frisk, but also concluded the officers were not acting under a community caretaking function and discounted some aspects of officer testimony. Counsel for the juvenile, Dennis Toomey, urged the court to apply stricter protections for juveniles and argued the armed-and-dangerous standard should govern searches of children absent statutory authority.

Why this matters: The case tests the limits of the community caretaking doctrine when police encounter a juvenile reported missing and whether statutory protections referenced in argument—referred to in the transcript as "39 h" or the CRA statute—affect what officers may do before taking a child into custody. Counsel and several justices questioned whether a blanket allowance to pat-frisk juveniles before transporting them would conflict with prior state decisions narrowing officer authority in traffic-stop exit orders.

At oral argument the parties focused on several contested factual and legal points the court will need to resolve.

- Factual findings: The motion judge found the backseat passengers looked back at the cruiser during the stop; the motion judge also discredited a social-media firearm tip and concluded the officers were not operating under a community caretaking function. The Commonwealth disputed some of the judge's credibility inferences.

- Officer training and BOLO: The Commonwealth noted an officer had received a BOLO (be-on-the-lookout) at roll call that morning that the child remained missing and testified he was trained to bring found juveniles to the station so a guardian could be contacted. The defense challenged the BOLO's provenance and whether it was stale or corroborated.

- Gang association and safety concerns: The transcript records a trial finding that Officer Fabian had prior encounters with a person identified in the record as Ricky Montia, described as an associate of the Trinitarios street gang. The Commonwealth argued presence of a gang associate and other conduct (looking back, alleged ducking) supported an objectively reasonable safety concern; defense counsel responded that the record did not show that the associate was violent or armed and that presence alone did not create an emergency.

- Statutory question ("39 h"/CRA): Several justices asked whether the court should consider a statute described in argument as governing how officers handle juveniles who have repeatedly run away (referred to in the transcript as the CRA or "39 h" statute). Defense counsel argued the statute provides protections limiting when police may take a juvenile into custody and that, absent an emergency or statutory authority, police should not treat juveniles as criminal suspects subjected to searches. The Commonwealth countered that the statute appeared aimed at providing services and may not govern the specific facts here; it maintained the exit order and frisk were reasonable under community caretaking.

- Standards for searches: The core legal dispute presented was whether officers may pat-frisk a juvenile being taken into custody under the community caretaking doctrine without the armed-and-dangerous standard or other objective, articulable safety concerns. The Commonwealth urged discretion for officers transporting persons for caretaking; defense counsel said juveniles should receive the same or stronger protections and asserted the armed-and-dangerous standard should apply unless statutory authority says otherwise.

Throughout argument multiple justices pressed both sides on limits and consequences of adopting either a broad rule allowing pat frisks for caretaking transports or a stricter rule that would require objective evidence of danger. The parties repeatedly returned to whether the trial record supports the judge's findings and whether statutory text should inform reasonableness under the state constitution.

The court did not announce a decision at argument. The transcript ends with defense counsel stating he would rest on his brief.