Com. v. Waters, S.
152 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- On March 5, 2015, police responded to a report of gunshots near 25 New Dorwart Street and a caller described three males in dark hoodies.
- Shortly before the call, Officer Bradley observed three males running on nearby Filbert Street, wearing dark clothing and hoodies; he radioed this observation.
- Within minutes officers located and detained three males a few blocks from the reported shooting; only these three matched the description.
- Officers conducted limited pat-downs for weapons; Officer Sinnott felt a hard object on Waters and a handgun was recovered from beneath his outer pants.
- Waters was charged with firearms offenses, moved to suppress the stop/frisk and the gun, the trial court denied suppression, and Waters was convicted after a stipulated bench trial and sentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and frisk violated the Fourth Amendment (reasonable suspicion) | Waters: officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop and frisk him; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of illegal stop | Commonwealth: officers had reasonable suspicion based on radio report of shots, Bradley’s contemporaneous observation of three runners matching the description, spatial/temporal proximity, and high‑crime area; frisk was limited to officer safety | Court: affirmed denial of suppression — officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk and the pat‑down was properly limited; firearm discovery was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 866 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stop/frisk justified after officer heard shots and saw persons running nearby)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1997) (reasonable‑suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences)
- In re I.M., 727 A.2d 556 (Pa. 1999) (stop/frisk upheld where suspects were temporally/spatially proximate to reported violent crime and matched description)
- Commonwealth v. Arch, 654 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 1995) (officer may rely on radio information to justify a Terry stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authority for brief investigative stops and protective pat‑downs)