Com. v. Aponte, A.
Com. v. Aponte, A. No. 2842 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 10, 2017Background
- On Jan. 18, 2014, two uniformed officers in a marked cruiser observed a large crowd/commotion in a high-crime, high-narcotics area of Philadelphia.
- Officers saw Angel Aponte running toward the crowd, make eye contact with the police, stop, then turn and run away from the police.
- Officers pulled alongside; through the car window an officer asked Aponte to approach. Aponte backed up, put his hand near his front waist/hoodie pocket, said “I don’t have anything,” and then fled on foot.
- During the foot pursuit the officer observed Aponte throw a heavy chrome object into a yard/alley; officers recovered a loaded .22 caliber handgun.
- Aponte was charged with firearm offences; he moved to suppress the gun, arguing the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that any abandonment of the gun was coerced.
- The suppression court denied the motion; after a stipulated waiver trial Aponte was convicted and sentenced. He appealed only the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Aponte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain/investigate Aponte after he ran and then fled when approached | Flight in a known high-crime area plus the circumstances (running toward a crowd, clutching waist, evasive conduct, verbal denial) justified reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop | Mere running/turning away from police is innocent and insufficient; the initial encounter provoked flight, so abandonment of the gun was coerced and evidence should be suppressed | Court affirmed denial of suppression: given totality of circumstances (presence in high-crime area, unprovoked headlong flight, officer experience, evasive conduct) officers had reasonable suspicion; gun seizure was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area is a relevant factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (officer may conduct brief investigatory stop on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 2001) (adopting Wardlow’s consideration of flight in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 2000) (describing the three levels of police-citizen interactions: mere encounter, investigative detention, custodial detention)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 588 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1991) (mere flight alone is not always sufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (innocent facts in combination may justify further investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 53 A.3d 889 (Pa. Super. 2012) (totality of the circumstances governs reasonable-suspicion inquiries)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of appellate review in suppression matters is confined to the suppression hearing record)