Com. v. James, L., 295 EDA 2016

Police SED officers patrolled a high-crime Allentown intersection known for recent armed robberies; they observed two men (Appellant James and Subject A) enter Madina’s, a normally open fried-chicken shop that was dark inside.
The shop owner stared silently and told officers the two were not customers. Appellant said he was waiting for a friend in the bathroom despite a visible “bathroom out of order” sign.
Officers removed and arrested an intoxicated Subject B from the bathroom and discovered a quantity of heroin on him.
Officer Koons asked Appellant for his name; Appellant appeared nervous and his hands shook while writing. Koons asked to search Appellant, performed a pat-down, felt a firearm in Appellant’s waistband, and recovered a loaded gun.
Appellant was charged with two firearms offenses; he moved to suppress the gun arguing lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk. The trial court denied suppression; after a bench trial Appellant was convicted and sentenced.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, finding the totality of circumstances supported both the investigatory stop and the weapons frisk.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant (Terry stop)	No—Appellant was merely waiting in a restaurant for a friend; no specific facts suggested criminal activity	Yes—darkened normally open business, owner’s odd behavior, location’s crime history, implausible explanation about bathroom justify reasonable suspicion	Held: Stop reasonable under totality of circumstances
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Appellant for weapons (Terry frisk)	No—officer improperly relied on general ‘‘guns follow drugs’’ notion; facts did not show Appellant was armed/dangerous	Yes—officer relied on totality: area robbery pattern, darkened store, owner’s silence, link to arrestee with heroin, Appellant’s nervousness and shaking hands justified frisk	Held: Frisk reasonable; officer had particularized basis to suspect appellant might be armed

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established stop-and-frisk framework)
Commonwealth v. E.M., 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999) (distinguishes stop and frisk standards; frisk justified only by facts showing suspect may be armed and dangerous)
Commonwealth v. Grahame, 7 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2010) (court cautions against treating ‘‘guns follow drugs’’ as a per se justification for frisks)
Commonwealth v. Page, 59 A.3d 1118 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for suppression denials)
Commonwealth v. Preacher, 827 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2003) (separate inquiries for stop and frisk; stop may be valid while frisk is not)