A legal brief filed by the Westmoreland County district attorney in connection with an investigation into the fatal shooting of a teenage neighbor of state Sen. Robert Regola suggests for the first time that the boy's death was a crime rather than an accident or suicide.

Louis Farrell, 14, was found dead behind his home July 22 with a gunshot wound of the head. A handgun registered to Mr. Regola was found next to him.

District Attorney John Peck and the state police have not said if Louis died by accident, suicide or homicide. The county coroner's office has not ruled on a manner of death.

But in a brief filed last week opposing efforts by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to unseal a search warrant affidavit executed on Mr. Regola's home, the district attorney's office wrote:

"The affidavit would communicate to the general public that the district attorney believes that someone may be guilty of a crime, and yet there will be no context in which to evaluate that opinion."

Elsewhere, Mr. Peck said, "should the affidavit be released, it would essentially provide a roadmap for perpetrator(s) as well as the press, seriously compromising and potentially destroying both the integrity and the effectiveness of the entire investigation."

His office also wrote: "A death investigation suggests the possibility of crime at its most serious, creating a heightened public interest in successful prosecution."

Additionally, Mr. Peck argued for the need to ensure potential jurors are not influenced and to safeguard fair trial rights for anyone potentially charged with a crime.

Nowhere in the 48-page brief does Mr. Peck mention the possibility of Louis' death being suicide or accident.

Neither Mr. Peck nor Assistant District Attorney Christiann Otto Flanigan, who together submitted the brief, could be reached yesterday for comment.

Attorney Jon Perry, who represents the Farrell family, said he found some of Mr. Peck's language revealing, particularly a passage that says: "The crime is still recent, and the investigation is actively being pursued."

That, said Mr. Perry, "is either a poor choice of words or an affirmation that the district attorney and investigating officers believe a crime was committed."

Attorney Mark Rush, who represents Mr. Regola, said he did not find the legal language unusual or unexpected.

"I'm not surprised to see that. I don't read into that anything more than the kind of language you would expect in a motion to keep a search warrant sealed," he said.

Investigators have not said when exactly they believe Louis died, whether anyone was with him or how the senator's 9 mm handgun ended up next to his body.

Authorities have said Louis was pet-sitting for Mr. Regola on July 21 when the senator was accepting an award in Harrisburg with his wife. The senator's oldest son, Robert Regola IV, was at an amusement park all day and returned home that evening.

At 11:30 p.m., Louis and Robert IV had a phone conversation. What happened next is unknown. The next time anyone is known to have seen Louis is around 8:30 the next morning, when his father, attorney J. Douglas Farrell, found his son dead about 200 feet from his house.

Louis' family has vehemently discounted the possibility that the boy killed himself.

Attorney Duke George, who is representing Robert IV, said yesterday he had not seen Mr. Peck's brief.

"I really don't understand where they're going as far as this investigation is concerned," Mr. George said.

Mr. Peck is on record as saying that Mr. Regola was likely not reckless in how he stored his handgun, meaning it would be doubtful the senator could be prosecuted if a minor obtained the gun.

The Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review have sued to unseal the search warrant affidavit obtained Aug. 8 and executed the next day. Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Rita D. Hathaway granted the warrant and sealed it for up to 60 days.

While executing the warrant, state police seized a small safe belonging to Robert IV and a computer.

In arguing for the affidavit to remain sealed, the prosecutors told the judge that granting a motion to unseal would be "utterly inappropriate and unprecedented."

They also said keeping the document sealed is necessary to preserve the privacy of "everyone involved, including two minors, and promoting the safety and sanctity of this community."

"Those interests," they wrote, "are sufficient to override and outweigh any interest in favor of disclosure at this time."

The prosecutors also said redacting parts of the affidavit, as suggested by the newspapers, is not an option because essentially the entire document would have to be redacted.