Court: Judges can dismiss complaints against juveniles to keep them from getting a record if they feel their arrests were in error

A Boston high-school student caught with five small bags of marijuana has sparked a change in the way judges deal with teens arrested on charges the judges don't feel are warranted.

Ironically, however, the decision does not help the kid, who was seeking to have his permanent court record expunged because the judge in his case dismissed the charge because he should never have been arrested in the first place. In its ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld past rulings that state law mandates court records are forever, no matter how egregious the wrong done to a defendant.

According to the SJC ruling, the teen, 15 and a student at an unnamed Boston high school, came to school late on Jan. 24, 2011 - and reeking of pot, The school's dean of discipline began to grill him:

When the dean spoke to the juvenile, the juvenile became "very defensive and agitated." An administrative search of the juvenile's person was conducted in the school nurse's office, which resulted in the recovery of "[five] plastic bags of ... what appeared to be marijuana" that was located inside the right pocket of "a second pair of shorts under his pants."

Police were called and they decided to charge him with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

The teen's lawyer asked a judge to dismiss the case before arraignment, saying that mere possession of a small amount of pot, even if divided into five bags, was not enough to warrant the charge, and that arraignment would create a permanent record that could follow the teen. The judge agreed, said the possession was not enough to warrant "probable cause," but said the teen had to be arraigned first, then have the charge dismissed.

The state's highest court, however, said that it was laying down the law for juvenile cases and that a judge has the discretion to dismiss a case before arraignment:

The application in support of the complaint noted that the administrative search of the juvenile's person revealed five plastic bags of what appeared to be marijuana, but made no mention of smoking paraphernalia. Because one would expect a police officer to have mentioned such paraphernalia if it were found, we infer that the absence of any reference to such paraphernalia in the application suggests that none was found on the juvenile's person during the search. But, applying that same inference, we conclude that the search also did not uncover a scale, a cellular telephone or pager, or empty plastic bags, each of which would be consistent with dealing drugs. Nor, applying that inference, was any cash found in his possession, which suggests both that he had not sold any marijuana on his way to school and that he was not concerned with the need to make change if he did make a sale. The absence of drug paraphernalia may be consistent with an intent to distribute marijuana, see Commonwealth v. Wilson, 441 Mass. 390, 401 (2004), but considering the totality of what was not found on his person, no reasonable inference can be made that the juvenile intended to distribute the marijuana in his possession, especially where the smell of marijuana coming from the juvenile's person suggests that he had just smoked marijuana.

The court then moves onto the issue of keeping a teen from getting a court record in such a case:

Where, as here, a juvenile files a motion to dismiss a complaint before arraignment based on the absence of probable cause, and where a judge, after reviewing the "four corners" of the complaint application, concludes that there is a substantial likelihood that the motion is meritorious, a judge does not abuse his discretion in deciding to hear and rule on that motion before arraignment to protect the child from the potential adverse consequences of a CARI record. Because G.L. c. 119, § 53, mandates that juveniles "as far as practicable ... shall be treated, not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance," we recognize that the juvenile justice system "is primarily rehabilitative, cognizant of the inherent differences between juvenile and adult offenders, and geared toward 'the correction and redemption to society of delinquent children.' " Commonwealth v. Magnus M., 461 Mass. 459, 461 (2012), quoting Metcalf v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 648, 651 (1959). ... We therefore recognize the importance of giving Juvenile Court judges broad discretion to protect the best interests of children consistent with the interests of justice.

Justice Francis Spina dissented, arguing the police did have probable cause to make an arrest:

Granted, he did not have a scale, a pager, or a cellular telephone, but he was entering a closed environment, a school, that had many sets of vigilant eyes protective of the best interests of other children in the school. He could not carry the usual items needed to set up shop. See id. Instead, he carried a small amount for distribution--just enough for the brief periods between classes when he could conduct his business without calling undue attention to himself. See id. In all likelihood, given the school environment, he could deal only with people he knew and trusted. The manner in which he concealed the marijuana suggests he might access his supply in a restroom or outdoors during a break--after satisfying himself that no authority figures were in the vicinity. Having been discovered, he became "very defensive and agitated." The totality of these circumstances paints a picture from which a reasonable person could infer that the juvenile intended to distribute the paltry amount of marijuana secreted on his person.

• Complete ruling, Commonwealth vs. Humberto H., a juvenile