Com. v. Holley, T.
2024 Pa. Super. 183
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2024Background
- Tarique Holley was observed by a police officer in downtown Pittsburgh, an area noted for juvenile violence, holding and manipulating a handgun in a crowd of juveniles.
- A juvenile alerted Officer Verbitsky to Holley's gun; the officer observed Holley remove and replace the gun from his pocket twice and take a "shooter’s grip."
- Holley was detained and subsequently charged with carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a loaded weapon.
- Holley moved to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for his detention.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, reasoning the officer lacked sufficient suspicion of criminal activity beyond mere possession of a firearm.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing reasonable suspicion was present given the circumstances beyond mere firearm possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Holley | Officer had specific reason to suspect criminal activity (juvenile crowd, alarmed witness, suspect's conduct with gun) | No articulable facts beyond possession; Hicks prohibits seizure based solely on firearm possession | Court held reasonable suspicion existed in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019) (mere possession of a concealed firearm in public, absent additional circumstances, does not establish reasonable suspicion for seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (reasonable suspicion requires specific articulable facts under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Korn, 139 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sets standard for appellate review of suppression orders)