Com. v. Thomas, D., 273 A.3d 1190

On March 27, 2019, Officers Craig and Burton observed D’Angelo Thomas riding a bicycle on a Philadelphia sidewalk in violation of City Ordinance 12‑808.
Officers in a marked patrol car pulled alongside; Officer Craig asked, “Yo, can you hold up for a second?” Thomas stepped off the bike.
Officer Burton exited the vehicle; within about a second Thomas pointed, began to run northbound, reached into his waistband, and discarded a firearm which officers later recovered.
Thomas moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the police stop/chase was an unconstitutional seizure without reasonable suspicion and that he was coerced into abandoning the gun.
The trial court denied suppression, conducted a stipulated bench trial finding Thomas guilty of unlicensed firearm offenses, and sentenced him to three years’ reporting probation.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the initial contact was a mere encounter (not a seizure) and, alternatively, that reasonable suspicion existed to justify a temporary stop for the ordinance violation.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether police conduct amounted to a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	Thomas: Pulling a marked car alongside and asking him to “hold up for a second” was coercive; he was not free to leave, so the stop/chase lacked reasonable suspicion and abandonment was coerced	Commonwealth: The contact was a mere encounter (no show of force or command); alternatively officer had reasonable suspicion to detain for the bicycle‑on‑sidewalk ordinance	Held: Interaction was a mere encounter (no seizure). Alternatively, reasonable suspicion existed to stop for the observed ordinance violation; suppression denial affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2014) (totality‑of‑circumstances test; objective inquiry whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
Commonwealth v. Mendenhall, 715 A.2d 1117 (Pa. 1998) (factors to evaluate whether police conduct constitutes a show of authority/seizure)
Commonwealth v. Newsome, 170 A.3d 1151 (Pa. Super. 2017) (initial officer instruction to “come here” did not automatically produce a seizure)
Commonwealth v. Au, 42 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2012) (no seizure where officer did not use lights, weapons, blocking, or authoritative tone)
Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1196 (Pa. 2019) (investigative detention where officer physically blocked exit—seizure)
Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2011) (classification of police/citizen encounters into mere encounters, investigative detentions, and arrests)
Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2019) (deference to suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations)