Court Opinion

ID: 9756581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:38:56.246003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:26.234813
License: Public Domain

Justice BALDWIN,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I agree that there was no reasonable suspicion to detain the Appellees. It is clear from the record that the officers investigating the party lacked reasonable suspicion that any of the Appellees were consuming alcohol in violation of the underage drinking statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a). I write separately because I find, as the Superior Court found, the analysis to resolve the instant matter need only encompass a review of reasonable suspicion.
“[A] seizure that is less intrusive than a traditional arrest,” in order to be reasonable, “must ordinarily be supported by reasonable suspicion, based upon objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.” Commonwealth v. *406Beaman, 588 Pa. 636, 642-43, 880 A.2d 578, 582 (2005). Indeed, we have noted that the United States Supreme Court “emphasized] the centrality of the individualized suspicion requirement [in] Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” when it established the reasonable suspicion exception in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 n. 18, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 n. 18, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Here, there are no such objective facts in the record to indicate the officers had individualized reasonable suspicion.
As such, this matter presents no cause to address suspicion-less, general searches or to engage in analysis of a different standard applied to large groups detained without individualized suspicion.