Commonwealth v. Carter
105 A.3d 765
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- At ~9:00 p.m., officers on patrol in a high‑crime Philadelphia corner (G St. & Madison) observed Hykeem Carter standing on the corner with a noticeable bulge in his left coat pocket.
- Officers circled the block multiple times over ~10 minutes; each time Carter looked toward the officers and turned or walked away so the bulge was not plainly visible (three to four times).
- Officer Blaszczyk (6 years on force, ~75 gun arrests, 8–10 at that corner) believed the bulge was a firearm based on size, weight, shape, and how it swung.
- Officers exited their vehicle, approached Carter, performed a Terry pat‑down, and recovered a loaded .22 Walther handgun. Carter was arrested and charged with firearms offenses.
- The suppression court originally denied the motion to suppress, then on reconsideration granted suppression finding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion (criticizing reliance on officer experience and treating observed factors as individually insufficient).
- The Superior Court (en banc majority) reversed the suppression order, holding the stop and pat‑down were supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances; a dissent would have affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth’s Argument | Carter’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Carter | High‑crime drug/gun corner at night + visible weighted, sharply‑angled bulge + evasive body turns/walking away (repeated) + officer’s gun‑arrest experience = particularized, objective suspicion of a weapon | No reported crime, no furtive hand movements or other criminal act; presence in high‑crime area and turning away are innocent and insufficient for reasonable suspicion | Reversed suppression: under the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain and conduct a weapons pat‑down (majority) |
| Whether officer needed specialized training to give weight to his observation that the bulge was a gun | Officer’s multi‑year experience and dozens of gun arrests provided reasonable basis to infer a weapon; suppression court erred by requiring specialized/ATF‑level training | Suppression court correctly required more than naked inference; testimony lacked specialized training to identify a firearm by bulge alone | Reversed: officer’s experience and knowledge of local crime patterns may be given due weight; no rigid requirement of specialized training to support reasonable inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes stop‑and‑frisk standard and reasonable‑suspicion requirement)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality‑of‑circumstances; rejects divide‑and‑conquer analysis of factors)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) (Terry permits brief stops when officer has particularized, objective basis to suspect criminal activity)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (limits on consensual encounters versus seizures)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight or evasive behavior in high‑crime area can factor into reasonable suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1989) (an officer must articulate more than a hunch; factors may be considered together)
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2006) (officer training on identifying armed subjects is relevant to reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (courts must afford due weight to reasonable inferences drawn from officer experience)
- Commonwealth v. Foglia, 979 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 2009) (officer experience and specific conduct supporting belief a suspect is armed can justify pat‑down)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 588 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1991) (presence in a high‑crime area and walking away insufficient alone for reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (nervousness and minor movements insufficient without more to establish reasonable suspicion)