Com. v. Adams, J.
Com. v. Adams, J. No. 3365 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- On Dec. 23, 2014, Officer Mark Davis (plain clothes, unmarked car) observed two males on 24th Street in Philadelphia around 12:30 p.m.; Adams (19) sat on the bicycle handlebars while a 17-year-old operated it.
- Officer Davis noticed one rider wearing a backpack and believed it was during school hours in a high-crime area where he had made many gun arrests.
- From about 15 feet behind, Davis saw the bicyclist look back, whisper to Adams, and both make motions toward their waistbands while turning onto a side street.
- Davis activated his lights and siren; the bicyclist accelerated, both suspects ignored commands, ditched the bike, and fled in opposite directions. Davis pursued Adams; Adams discarded a gun during the chase; Davis retrieved it and later captured Adams.
- At suppression, the trial court found no reasonable suspicion for the stop and suppressed the firearm. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing reasonable suspicion based on possible truancy (and alternatively, firearm-related conduct).
- The Superior Court reversed, holding Davis had reasonable suspicion to detain for possible truancy and thus suppression was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Adams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop/detain for truancy | Two young males at 12:30 p.m., one with backpack, during school hours -> reasonable suspicion of truancy | Officer Davis failed to establish schools were actually in session; his belief was uncertain and some schools may have been closed | Yes. Officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect truancy based on totality of circumstances; brief investigative stop permitted |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop for possible firearm possession | Whispering, waistband movements, high-crime area, turning onto side street together supported suspicion of weapons possession | Movements were ambiguous; reenactment showed only elbow motion and were insufficient alone | Not decided on appeal (court noted trial court rejected firearm-based suspicion but outcome turned on truancy) |
| Whether gun was fruit of illegal stop | If stop lacked reasonable suspicion, discarded gun must be suppressed | Stop was unlawful so gun should be suppressed | Gun suppression reversed because stop was lawful for truancy; gun admissible |
| Whether officer’s subjective intent matters | Objective standard applies; officer need not actually intend truancy stop if facts objectively supported it | Officer allegedly stopped with gun suspicion in mind, not truancy | Objective test controls; court assesses what facts supported reasonable suspicion regardless of subjective intent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.C.J., 799 A.2d 116 (Pa. Super. 2002) (observing apparent school-age youth on street during school hours can supply reasonable suspicion of truancy)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (Terry reasonable-suspicion standard requires less than preponderance; totality of circumstances test)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (Terry accepts risk that officers may stop innocent people; flight in high-crime area can be probative)
- Commonwealth v. Basinger, 982 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. 2009) (articulating requirement that officer identify specific observations and reasonable inferences supporting reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Ibrahim, 127 A.3d 819 (Pa. Super. 2015) (contraband discarded during a lawful pursuit is not subject to suppression)