266 A.3d 1090
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- On Sept. 18, 2019, two uniformed Pittsburgh police officers in a marked cruiser observed Arhawn Jones walking on East Ohio Street with an L-shaped bulge in his right jacket pocket that Officer Tranter immediately recognized as a firearm.
- Officer Tranter turned the cruiser, pulled past Jones (no lights/sirens), exited with Officer Gardocki, and engaged Jones in conversation; Tranter asked Jones his age and Jones replied he was 18.
- After Jones stated his age, officers searched him and recovered an operable firearm reported stolen; Jones was charged with firearms not to be carried without a license (and initially with receiving stolen property, later withdrawn).
- Jones filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officers’ conduct (blocking/pursuing/questioning) constituted an unlawful seizure without reasonable suspicion; the suppression court credited Tranter, denied the motion, and found the contact was a mere encounter.
- Parties proceeded to a stipulated bench trial; Jones was convicted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 and sentenced to 2 years’ probation (first year on electronic monitoring); Jones appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ approach, blocking/pursuit and age questioning amounted to an unlawful seizure lacking reasonable suspicion | The cruiser blocked his path, officers pursued and questioned him, and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; officers lacked reasonable suspicion—mere possession of a concealed firearm is insufficient (Hicks) | The contact was a mere consensual encounter; officers did not use lights/sirens or display weapons; asking age did not transform the encounter into a seizure | Interaction was a mere encounter; suppression court’s factual findings credited officer testimony and were supported by the record; no unlawful seizure; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019) (possession of a concealed firearm alone does not furnish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2019) (use of the objective “free to leave” test to determine whether a seizure occurred)
- Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2019) (distinguishes mere encounters from detentions; coercive show of authority required to effect a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2000) (police approach and questioning in public do not automatically constitute a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 162 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2017) (officer approach followed by questioning does not necessarily amount to a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Lyles, 54 A.3d 76 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requesting identification did not escalate to an investigative detention absent intimidation or coercion)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression denials; appellate deference to suppression court’s factual findings)