Com. v. Blenman, K., Com. v. Blenman, K. No. 1430 EDA 2016

Police in plain clothes in an unmarked car patrolled a high-crime Philadelphia block at about 1:00 a.m.; the area had recent shootings tied to drug sales near abandoned buildings.
Officers first observed Blenman standing in front of an abandoned house; he looked at them, turned, and walked down an alley; officers circled the block and saw him again.
On the second observation Blenman walked with a noticeable limp and had a large bulge in the front of his waistband; officers exited, identified themselves, and told him to stop.
Blenman fled; during the chase he discarded a large silver revolver into trash; he was arrested, taken to the hospital, then later Mirandized and gave a detailed signed statement admitting possession and provenance of the gun.
Trial court denied Blenman’s pretrial suppression motion; bench trial conviction for persons not to possess a firearm and related offenses; sentenced to 2.5–5 years plus probation. Appellant appealed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop/detention was supported by reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8	Commonwealth: Officer had reasonable suspicion based on time, location (high-crime area), prior relevant incidents, defendant’s turning/avoiding officers, officer training, and a large bulge in waistband suggesting a gun	Blenman: He was doing nothing illegal; merely standing and later walking away. The officers’ circling and stop were investigative seizures without reasonable suspicion; discarded gun and his statements are fruits of an unlawful seizure	Court affirmed denial of suppression: totality of circumstances (bulge location/size, flight, area, officer experience) gave specific, articulable suspicion to detain prior to pursuit; evidence and statements admissible

In re M.D., 781 A.2d 192 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard of review for suppression rulings and consideration of evidence presented at suppression hearing)
Commonwealth v. Galendez, 27 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Commonwealth’s burden to prove lawful seizure by preponderance at suppression hearing)
Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443 (Pa. Super. 2014) (police may rely on reasonable inferences drawn from facts given officer experience)
Commonwealth v. Arch, 654 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 1995) (officer cannot act on unparticularized suspicion or hunch)
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 588 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1991) (presence in high-crime area and hurried walking alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (similar facts where weighted/angled bulge, evasive turning, high-crime area, and officer circling supported reasonable suspicion)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)