The only legitimate reason for an officer to subject a suspect to a pat frisk is to determine whether he or she has concealed weapons on his or her person,'' Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote for the court. "We therefore do not allow such an intrusion absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is dangerous and has a weapon. [Emphasis in the ruling.]

The court reinforced the message in its 15-page ruling. To justify a pat frisk, an officer needs more than safety concerns,'' Budd wrote. "Without a basis for such suspicion, there is no justification for the pat frisk.

The court ordered the gun evidence thrown out. Although the defendant properly was stopped for motor vehicle violations, the subsequent pat frisk of his person and search of his vehicle were unconstitutional,'' Budd wrote.

In a statement, Springfield Police Commissioner Cheryl Clapprood said she was disappointed in the ruling and that "performing a pat frisk in a situation like this was essential to both officer safety and the safety of any civilians in the area.

In a separate e-mail, Springfield Police spokesman Ryan Walsh said the department was reviewing the SJC ruling to see if any changes in training will be necessary.

Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gullunis office, which prosecuted the case, said it was reviewing the ruling, as was the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, of which Gulluni is the president.

Claire Alexis Ward, who argued Torres-Pagans case before the SJC, wrote in an e-mail that she and the other lawyers representing him were gratified by the ruling.

"We are very pleased that the SJC recognized Mr. Torres-Pagans right to be free from unreasonable intrusion by the police and we are gratified that the Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the legal standard,'' she wrote.

In the ruling, the court acknowledged that it has sometimes provided more confusion than clarity when addressing the nexus between constitutional rights afforded citizens during traffic stops under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"Our articulation of the pat frisk standard has not always been clear. On occasion we have not been as precise with our language as we could have been, specifically when discussing the pat frisk standard as it relates to the standard for exit orders [orders by police for someone to get out of a car],'' the court acknowledged. For example, we have stated, inaccurately, that the standard for a pat frisk is the same as that which is required to justify an exit order.

Going forward, the court ruled, there are three reasons that justify ordering someone out of their car:

- Police are warranted in the belief that the safety of the officers or others is threatened.

- Police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

- "Police are conducting a search of the vehicle on other grounds.

Once that person is out of the car, police must have articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed before a pat frisk is constitutionally permissible," the court ruled.

Having different standards for exit orders and pat frisks makes logical sense. To be sure, issuing an order to a motorist to get out of his or her vehicle during a traffic stop is an imposition that cannot be considered minimal,'' Budd wrote. However, an exit order is considerably less intrusive than a pat frisk, which is a severe . . . intrusion upon cherished personal security [that] must surely be annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating.'

Budd quoted from the landmark 1968 US Supreme Court ruling Terry vs. Ohio that formalized Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures by police.

John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

Link:

SJC: Police can't pat frisk a driver solely out of concern for safety of officers and public - The Boston Globe