In July of 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard a case involving three juveniles who were charged with resisting arrest in Boston. These minors had been arrested by police officers following early dismissal from Brockton High School. Although the teens raised valid points, these arguments failed to convince the court that excessive force was involved in their arrests. The court did, however, agree that the arresting officer did not “permit at least a good-faith judgment” that probable cause existed. This paved the way for a motion to dismiss or for a required finding.
Early High School Dismissal Leads to Multiple Arrests Near Brockton High School
In October of 2019, Brockton High School students flocked to the streets after an early dismissal at 11 AM. Numerous fights between students over the past week meant that local law enforcement was already on high alert, and they responded in force. Multiple fights broke out, and a large crowd of juveniles amassed on Florence Street.
An officer approached the scene but could not travel faster than five miles per hour due to the density of the crowd. At this point, a student is alleged to have stuck his head through an open window in the police vehicle and yelled abuse at the officer. The officer then exited the vehicle and questioned the student. Another student put her phone inches from the officer’s face and accused him of harassing them.
Students began to surround the officer, and the officer began shoving them away. Other officers came to assist, and eventually, numerous students were placed under arrest. In making their arrests, the officers engaged in violence such as kicking, shoving, and the use of a taser.
Students Tell a Different Story During Trial
During their trial, the students told a very different story from the one presented by law enforcement. The first student denied having shouted into the officer’s vehicle. They also claimed that they were the victims of excessive force, and they presented video footage in an attempt to support these claims. Ultimately, these attempts failed to convince the lower court, although one juvenile experienced positive outcomes due to a jury instruction error.
The Supreme Judicial Court was equally unimpressed. Aside from the single aforementioned concession, the court affirmed all of the juvenile’s charges, including resisting arrest and assault and battery.
The court made a few noteworthy comments, however. It stated that the involvement of a second officer does not automatically mean that the defendant involved is resisting arrest, which is an argument that the Commonwealth tried to make. Specifically, the Commonwealth contended that the fact that the arresting officer needed assistance was sufficient evidence of a struggle associated with resisting arrest. The court noted that there are many other circumstances in which a second officer might assist another officer.
From the perspective of the defendants, a less encouraging decision involved the student who had put a phone inches away from the officer’s face. The court defined this as a form of resisting arrest, even though the officer may have slapped the phone out of her hands multiple times before she actually touched him.
Speak With an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston
Issues like these often demand the attention of a criminal defense attorney in Boston. To learn more about the definition of resisting arrest in Boston, consider speaking with Edward R. Molari today.