Com. v. Ings, J., Com. v. Ings, J. No. 2253 EDA 2015

In September 2012 Philadelphia police in plain clothes and an unmarked car were patrolling near 54th and Berks after receiving a week-old “flash” report of gunpoint robberies by two black males about 5'10"–6'0", thin build.
At ~1:00 a.m. Officer Opalski saw Joel Ings riding a bicycle near 55th and Berks; Ings rode past the officers along the driver’s side.
Officers announced “police,” displayed badges, and ordered Ings to stop; Ings accelerated and rode away.
During the officers’ pursuit, Ings threw a glass jar; officers caught him a short distance away and recovered the jar containing crack cocaine.
Ings moved to suppress the narcotics, arguing the stop was an illegal seizure because officers lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court granted suppression after finding the officer’s testimony not credible.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s opinion that the initial stop was unsupported by reasonable suspicion, so the discarded drugs were fruits of the illegal stop.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Ings' Argument	Held
Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Ings	Officer Opalski had a reasonable, articulable suspicion: Ings matched the flash description and displayed a bulge in his waistband that could be a gun	The stop was unconstitutional: matching a vague week‑old flash description and observing no suspicious conduct did not supply reasonable suspicion	Stop was unlawful — court found officer’s testimony not credible and no reasonable suspicion existed
Whether contraband discarded during Ings’ flight is admissible	Abandoned contraband is admissible if the initial stop was justified	Contraband is fruit of illegal seizure and must be suppressed because the chase continued the seizure	Contraband suppressed as it was the fruit of an unconstitutional stop

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010) (items abandoned during pursuit are fruits of a seizure and inadmissible if initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion)
In re M.D., 781 A.2d 192 (Pa. Super. 2001) (officer must have reasonable suspicion linked to defendant’s conduct for investigative stop)
Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stop occurs when officer orders citizen to halt; pursuit constitutes seizure)
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 588 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1991) (presence in high‑crime area or nondescript bulge alone insufficient for stop absent suspicious behavior)
Commonwealth v. Espada, 528 A.2d 968 (Pa. Super. 1987) (officer’s observation of irregular behavior must be linked to belief crime is afoot)
Commonwealth v. Camacho, 625 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Super. 1993) (suppression court’s credibility determinations will not be reversed absent manifest abuse)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 (Pa. 2011) (trial court must independently evaluate whether reasonable suspicion existed under totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 378 A.2d 835 (Pa. 1977) (ordering person to stop constitutes a seizure)
Commonwealth v. Matos, 679 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (pursuit by police can constitute a seizure)