Com. v. Green, O.
2383 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- On Oct. 7, 2014 at ~1:30 a.m., plainclothes officers in an unmarked car were patrolling near West Seymour Street because of a gunpoint robbery the previous night on Queen Lane (three blocks away).
- The robbery description: a Black male in a dark hoodie riding a bicycle.
- Officer Woltman saw Green riding a bicycle wearing a dark hoodie, exited the car, identified himself and asked to speak with Green; while speaking he noticed a bulge in Green’s front pocket.
- Officer Woltman frisked Green for officer safety, felt packaging, and recovered ten small bags of marijuana and additional packaging; Green was arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana.
- Green moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was an unconstitutional investigative detention based on an overly generic description; municipal court denied suppression, municipal court convicted, trial court denied certiorari petition, and Green appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers' interaction was an investigative detention requiring reasonable suspicion | Green: officers stopped him based on a generic description (race, dark hoodie, bicycle) from a prior robbery and thus lacked reasonable suspicion for a stop | Commonwealth: interaction was supported by reasonable suspicion given proximity in time/place and matching description; parties assumed it was an investigative detention | Court held the record supported that the encounter was a mere encounter (no seizure); suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether evidence seized following the encounter should be suppressed as fruit of an illegal stop | Green: seizure was illegal so recovered marijuana should be suppressed | Commonwealth: frisk/search was justified by officer safety and reasonable suspicion | Court affirmed denial of suppression because interaction was a mere encounter and frisk followed observation of a bulge that could be a weapon |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995) (three categories of police-citizen encounters)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 378 A.2d 835 (Pa. 1977) (fact-specific line between mere encounter and investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Mendenhall, 715 A.2d 1117 (Pa. 1998) (seizure analysis focuses on whether reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 732 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Super. 1999) (objective test whether a person was seized)
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (seizure and encounter principles)
- Commonwealth v. McClease, 750 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 2000) (examples of circumstances indicating a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Key, 789 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 2001) (objective reasonable-person seizure test)
- United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947 (3d Cir. 1994) (officer questioning alone does not automatically create a seizure)