Com. v. Strickland, E.
1493 EDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 1, 2016Background
- Police dispatched to 2552 S. 62nd St. at ~10:45 a.m. for a 911 report of an attempted break‑in; caller was a female resident of the first floor and provided clothing descriptions of two male suspects.
- Officer Caserta arrived within ~30 seconds; saw Strickland and another man a few feet from the residence and both matched the callers’ clothing descriptions.
- Caserta ordered both men to place their hands on a car for investigation; Strickland appeared fidgety and made sudden movements.
- A fellow officer frisked Strickland’s companion and found a handgun; then Caserta handcuffed Strickland and conducted a pat‑down.
- Caserta felt and recovered a loaded .38 revolver from Strickland’s waistband.
- Strickland moved to suppress the gun, arguing the stop/frisk lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied suppression, convicted him, and the Superior Court affirmed the denial and judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Strickland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain (Terry stop) | 911 caller was a known victim whose timely, specific report + rapid police arrival + exact clothing match in a high‑crime area justified a brief investigative detention | The tip was effectively anonymous and uncorroborated; matching clothing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion | Yes — detention was supported by reasonable suspicion |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to frisk for weapons | Fidgety behavior, failure to comply, high‑crime location, exact match to victim’s description, and discovery of gun on companion supported belief Strickland might be armed and dangerous | No reasonable basis to conclude Strickland was armed; frisk was unsupported and intrusive | Yes — frisk was justified for officer safety; weapon discovery admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief investigatory stops and limited frisks on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1997) (known or identifiable victim informant carries greater indicia of reliability than an anonymous tip)
- In re D.M., 727 A.2d 556 (Pa. 1999) (victim radio report by identifiable caller imparts high reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 1997) (an anonymous tip alone, without corroboration, typically does not furnish reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Shelly, 703 A.2d 499 (Pa. Super. 1997) (reasonable suspicion is less than a preponderance but more than a hunch; evaluate totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. E.M./Hall, 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999) (during a valid stop, officer may frisk for weapons if specific facts support belief suspect is armed and dangerous)