Com. v. Lopez, L.
Com. v. Lopez, L. No. 1078 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 11, 2017Background
- On June 25, 2015 a confidential informant (CI) with a history of reliable tips told Erie police Officer Jason Russell that two individuals, including Luis Lopez, were currently in possession of firearms in the city’s upper west side.
- Officer Russell knew Lopez and knew Lopez was under 21 and therefore ineligible for a firearm license; officers drove to the general area and located Lopez seated outside a residence.
- Officer Russell exited the cruiser, asked Lopez what was going on and whether he had any weapons; Lopez immediately ran up an enclosed stairway toward an apartment.
- Officer Russell chased Lopez, observed Lopez reach toward his midline and, as Lopez crossed the apartment threshold, saw Lopez’s elbow move and a small black pistol in his right hand; Russell tackled and arrested Lopez and recovered the gun.
- Lopez moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the officers had no reasonable suspicion to seize him; the trial court denied suppression, Lopez was convicted at a bench trial for carrying a firearm without a license, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Police) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police contact was a seizure | The officer’s approach and questions amounted to a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | The initial contact was a mere encounter — non-coercive questioning did not restrain movement | Court held it was a mere encounter; no seizure until Lopez fled |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain after Lopez fled | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion because CI information was insufficiently explained and initial contact gave no basis for suspicion | Flight in a high-crime area plus CI’s credible tip, officer’s knowledge Lopez was under 21 (ineligible to carry), and observed unprovoked flight together provided reasonable suspicion | Court held seizure after flight was supported by reasonable suspicion; suppression properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings and reviewing court’s scope of review)
- Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 2000) (approach and questioning by officer can be a mere encounter, not a seizure)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigatory stop/seizure standard)
- In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 2001) (flight in a high-crime area plus a tip can provide reasonable suspicion; seizure occurs when officer attempts stop)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight in high-crime area is a relevant factor in reasonable suspicion analysis)