Com. v. Ferguson, B., 1050 EDA 2016

On Feb. 19, 2015 Appellant Balil L. Ferguson was charged with DUI after police stopped him driving a gray/white/silver car with front bumper damage matching an anonymous tip about a hit-and-run on northbound I‑95.
Officers observed Ferguson minutes after the tip, about five blocks from an I‑95 exit ramp, and stopped his vehicle.
Ferguson filed a motion to suppress arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the Municipal Court denied the motion after a hearing but did not state findings of fact or conclusions of law, then convicted him after a bench trial.
Ferguson filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the denial of suppression; Ferguson appealed to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court held the Municipal Court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I) by not placing findings and conclusions on the record, creating an impediment to meaningful appellate review, and therefore vacated and remanded for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law and further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion where an anonymous tip reported a white/silver car with front bumper damage involved in an I‑95 hit‑and‑run and officers found Ferguson driving a similarly damaged gray car minutes later five blocks from an exit	Municipal/Commonwealth: The tip plus observed matching vehicle and proximity to the reported location provided reasonable suspicion to stop	Ferguson: The tip was anonymous/insufficient and the observed circumstances were too attenuated to create reasonable suspicion	The court did not resolve the substantive suppression question on appeal because the Municipal Court failed to make required findings; it vacated the certiorari denial and remanded for the Municipal Court to enter findings and conclusions, then for reconsideration by the Common Pleas

Commonwealth v. Neal, 151 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2016) (remand required when suppression court fails to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of appellate review of suppression rulings)
In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of review limited to evidentiary record at suppression hearing)
Commonwealth v. Astillero, 39 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2012) (circumstances when remand may be unnecessary despite absent findings)
Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005) (appellate approach when suppression court’s findings are unannounced)
Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (Pa. 2014) (discussion of appellate jurisdiction and remand practice)