Com. v. Stover, C., 3774 EDA 2016

On October 24, 2015, Officers Momme and O’Connor in Philadelphia heard a single gunshot near Ogontz Avenue in a neighborhood known for gun violence.
They observed Charles Stover riding a bicycle quickly away from the area, followed him briefly by car, lost and regained sight of him, then stopped him at Ogontz and 77th.
Officer Momme observed a bulge under Stover’s jacket which he believed—based on its shape, position, and his eight years’ experience—to be a firearm.
As Momme exited the patrol car, Stover dropped his bicycle and attempted to flee into a bar; Momme stopped him, Stover said “Yeah, it’s a gun,” and Momme recovered a loaded TEC-9 hanging by a shoelace around Stover’s neck.
Stover moved to suppress the firearm arguing the officer exceeded the scope of a Terry frisk/plain-feel by immediately seizing a concealed object that showed only as a bulge; the court denied the motion, convicted Stover after a stipulated bench trial, and sentenced him to 3–10 years’ imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Stover)	Held
Whether the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry frisk/plain-feel when he reached for and seized a concealed object that appeared only as a bulge	Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and, based on training and the object’s shape/location plus flight from scene of a gunshot, reasonably believed Stover was armed and dangerous; reaching for the bulge was limited and safety-justified	The bulge was not readily identifiable as a gun; immediately reaching in exceeded a protective pat‑down and violated Fourth Amendment protections	Trial court affirmed on suppression: stop and frisk were supported by reasonable suspicion; reaching for the bulge did not exceed frisk scope because the firearm’s location and appearance made it identifiable as a weapon; evidence admissible (court also noted inevitable discovery alternative)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (protective pat‑down for officer safety is permissible during an investigative stop)
Commonwealth v. Houser, 364 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 1976) (when a weapon’s location is apparent, officer may search that area directly)
Commonwealth v. Canning, 587 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1991) (frisk justified when officer reasonably believes suspect may be armed)
Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)