Com. v. Gray, A., 2668 EDA 2016

On Feb. 18, 2015 at ~8:15 p.m., Officer Victor Rodriguez (uniformed, marked car) observed Antonio Gray standing on a Philadelphia corner where robberies had recently occurred.\
Officer circled the block; Gray remained on the corner, then walked away, at which time Officer Rodriguez observed a black object in Gray’s right hand and saw Gray put it in his pocket from ~20 feet away.\
Officer Rodriguez stopped Gray for investigation, asked if he had a weapon; Gray allegedly responded, “All I have is crack, I’m a user.”\
Gray was arrested; a search incident to arrest produced a black pouch containing alleged crack cocaine. He was charged with possession (and initially PWID, later withdrawn).\
Municipal Court denied Gray’s suppression motion; Gray was convicted at a stipulated bench trial and sentenced to one year of reporting probation. Gray filed a certiorari petition in common pleas, which was denied; he appealed to the Superior Court.\
The Superior Court reviewed whether the stop was an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion and whether the statement and drugs should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion, so evidence and post-stop statement were admissible	The Commonwealth argued the officer had reasonable suspicion based on Gray’s presence in an area with recent robberies, Gray’s movement away from the corner, observation of a black object that could be a gun, and non-headlong flight	Gray argued the officer lacked objective facts to support reasonable suspicion: mere presence in a high-crime area, walking away (not flight), and an unidentified object seen from 20 feet did not justify stopping him	The court held the detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion; the stop was illegal, so Gray’s statement and the seized narcotics (fruits of the stop) must be suppressed and his conviction was reversed and he was discharged

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes that investigatory detentions require reasonable suspicion)\
Commonwealth v. Arnold, 932 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of appellate review of suppression rulings)\
Commonwealth v. Wood, 833 A.2d 740 (Pa. Super. 2003) (statement made after unlawful detention is fruit of illegality)\
Commonwealth v. Gray, 784 A.2d 137 (Pa. Super. 2001) (totality-of-circumstances factors for reasonable suspicion)\
Commonwealth v. Key, 789 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 2001) (walking away from police in a high-crime area is insufficient for reasonable suspicion)