Com. v. Rice, S.
3352 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- On March 28, 2015, uniformed Officer Sweeney and a partner on foot patrol in a neighborhood with recent daytime burglaries observed three men loitering outside a closed business.
- As officers approached, the men began to walk; Sweeney observed Appellant (Rice) adjust an object in his waistband below his belt buckle twice.
- Officer Sweeney ordered the three to stop, asked for identification, and detained them while a patrol car was flagged to run the IDs.
- During a frisk, Sweeney felt the barrel of a gun on Rice’s person and recovered a .22 H&R revolver; Rice lacked a license.
- Rice moved to suppress the firearm; the suppression court denied the motion, Rice was convicted after a waiver trial, and he appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Rice's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police contact was a mere encounter or an investigative detention | Officer Sweeney’s request for ID was a mere encounter; there was no reasonable suspicion to detain Rice | The officers were entitled to stop and investigate based on observed conduct and the high-crime context | Court: The encounter was an investigative detention (officer ordered them to stop), so reasonable suspicion is required |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop | Observing Rice standing on a public sidewalk and a single motion to his waistband was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion | Totality of circumstances — high-crime area, loitering, nervous behavior by others, and Rice’s repeated waistband adjustments — provided reasonable suspicion | Court: Reasonable suspicion existed to justify the investigative detention |
| Whether the frisk (Terry pat-down) was justified | The frisk was unconstitutional; movement toward waistband alone did not justify believing Rice was armed and dangerous | Officer’s training, waistband adjustments, cohort behavior, and context gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Rice was armed | Court: The frisk was lawful under Terry; frisk properly limited to discovery of weapons |
| Whether the firearm should be suppressed as product of unlawful stop/frisk | The firearm is the fruit of an illegal seizure and must be suppressed | Because stop and frisk were lawful, the firearm was admissible | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed; firearm admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Perel v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (review scope for suppression hearing)
- Stilo v. Commonwealth, 138 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2016) (review limited to suppression-hearing evidence)
- Guzman v. Commonwealth, 44 A.3d 688 (Pa. Super. 2012) (levels of citizen–police interactions and seizure analysis)
- DeHart v. Commonwealth, 745 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 2000) (investigative detention requires reasonable suspicion)
- Stevenson v. Commonwealth, 832 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reasonable-suspicion standard)
- Zhahir v. Commonwealth, 751 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2000) (area of expected criminal activity and evasive behavior relevant to reasonable suspicion)
- Foglia v. Commonwealth, 979 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 2009) (hand movements to waistband may support belief suspect is armed)
- Kemp v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (totality of circumstances may combine innocent facts to justify further investigation)
- E.M. v. Commonwealth, 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999) (Terry frisk requires particularized facts suggesting the suspect is armed and dangerous)