I'll add this one thought to the cogent and insightful comments expressed by Justice Dato:
This case doesn't get reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds in the era before police officers started wearing body-worn cameras. Absent the cameras, the officers' testimony would have been believed and the detention of the minors here approved. It's only because the officers are wearing cameras -- plus the heightened attention currently displayed towards the racial impact of overpolicing -- that results in both the tone and content of this opinion.
One (much less significant) final thought. The minor's name here is "Edgerrin J." We don't know his last name, but his first name (and initials) are somewhat unusual, and I couldn't stop myself from thinking of this guy.
