Com. v. Walker, M., Com. v. Walker, M. No. 51 EDA 2016

On Oct. 24, 2014, victim Ai Jiang was robbed of his cell phone; he chased the thief ~5–7 blocks but saw only the assailant’s back and clothing, not his face.
Within minutes officers received a flash report describing a “Black male, wearing all black” fleeing in a known direction; plainclothes officers found Walker a few blocks away, sweaty and out of breath, wearing black.
Officers identified themselves, detained Walker for investigation, and asked whether he had weapons; Walker said he had two cell phones.
During a pat-down Officer McGrorty removed two phones; one rang and displayed Asian characters; officers confirmed the victim was Asian and brought him (with his daughter as translator) to the scene.
The victim identified the recovered phone as his and said the clothing matched the robber’s; Walker made an inculpatory statement about taking the phone and was handcuffed and charged.
Walker moved to suppress the phone, identification, and statements; trial court granted suppression, finding the seizure exceeded a permissible frisk. The Commonwealth appealed and the Superior Court reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop/detention supported by reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause?	Commonwealth: officers had reasonable suspicion based on flash report, proximity, appearance, and behavior; detention lawful.	Walker: description was too general; detention was an improper investigatory stop.	Held: detention supported by reasonable suspicion that ripened to probable cause given totality of circumstances.
Was seizure of the phone and subsequent ID/statements lawful or subject to suppression?	Commonwealth: seizure was permissible as contemporaneous to a lawful arrest/search-incident-to-arrest (or at least justified by probable cause).	Walker: removal of phone exceeded scope of frisk and was fruit of unlawful search; supposed identification and statements should be suppressed.	Held: seizure and resulting ID/statements were admissible because the stop and arrest were lawful; suppression reversed.

Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980) (search contemporaneous to arrest may be reasonable when arrest closely follows search)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 650 A.2d 433 (Pa. 1994) (items linking a defendant to a crime may be seized when probable cause to arrest exists even if formal arrest follows)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 627 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. 1993) (proximity to scene, flight, and physical signs of exertion can support probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 907 A.2d 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (courts must assess totality of circumstances and defer to reasonable inferences by experienced officers)