167 A.3d 29
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On December 23, 2014, uniformed officers were told by Detective Rocks that a woman (the shooting victim’s girlfriend) reported the suspected shooter was standing on the 2600 block of N. 30th St., wearing a gray jacket and jeans; Detective Rocks had already developed Julius Brockman as a suspect in a December 12 shooting.
- Detective Rocks relayed the information and the suspect’s name to Officers McChord and D’Amico and asked them to check the location and bring the man to Central Detectives if they saw him.
- Officer McChord, who knew Brockman from the neighborhood, saw Brockman walking, told him to stop (no lights, siren, drawn weapon), and Brockman immediately reached toward his waistband and fled.
- While fleeing, Brockman dropped a black handgun and a clear bag later found to contain 35 small Ziploc packets of crack cocaine; Brockman was arrested the next day.
- Brockman moved to suppress the handgun and drugs, arguing the stop was an unlawful seizure based on an anonymous/uncorroborated tip and the discarded items were the fruit of forced abandonment; he also challenged sufficiency of evidence that the drugs were possessed with intent to deliver.
- The suppression court denied relief; after a stipulated bench trial (including stipulations about the recovered items and an expert’s opinion), Brockman was convicted of firearms and narcotics offenses and sentenced to 4–8 years incarceration plus 3 years’ probation. Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Brockman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Brockman, so the items discarded while fleeing are admissible | Officers acted on identified, corroborated information: Detective had developed Brockman as a suspect from the victim; a named, non-anonymous woman (victim’s girlfriend) gave a current location and clothing; officers were authorized to investigate — stop was a mere encounter/escalation to investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion | Stop was based on an anonymous or uncorroborated tip and did not establish Brockman matched the description; the command to stop amounted to an unlawful seizure causing forced abandonment of contraband | Court held arresting officers had reasonable suspicion based on the investigatory chain (detective’s suspect ID plus the named caller’s location/clothing report); suppression denied and discarded contraband admissible |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved possession with intent to deliver the crack cocaine | Evidence supported intent: 35 individually packaged packets (with markings), absence of personal-use paraphernalia, expert testimony opining intent to deliver, and flight/abandonment | Commonwealth relied solely on an expert’s conclusory opinion; quantity alone (3.943 g total) was not dispositive of intent to deliver | Court held evidence sufficient for intent to deliver when viewed together (quantity/packaging, expert opinion, flight, lack of paraphernalia); conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 154 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standards for types of police-citizen encounters and review of suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (scope of review for suppression and reliance on prosecution evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Swartz, 787 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 2001) (tips from third parties can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Barber, 889 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trustworthiness of identified citizen-informants and justification for stops based on departmental information)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 673 (Pa. 1999) (abandoned contraband recoverable where police had reasonable suspicion to stop)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors for inferring intent to deliver from possession)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (quantity not dispositive; other factors may be considered for intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Bess, 789 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 2002) (absence of personal-use paraphernalia supports inference of intent to deliver)