Commonwealth v. Davis
102 A.3d 996
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Around 2:00 a.m. in a high‑crime West Philadelphia area, Officers Devlin and Carter found two men standing over an unconscious person in the street; one of the two was Davis.
- Devlin observed one man possibly rummaging through the unconscious person’s pockets and noticed a weight/bulge in Davis’s right breast pocket.
- Devlin activated lights, exited the patrol car, approached the group, and conducted a pat‑down of Davis for officer safety.
- Davis attempted to swat Devlin’s hand and flailed; Devlin immediately felt and identified a firearm in the pocket, shouted “gun!”, and the officers secured the weapon (a Rossi .357).
- Davis was arrested and charged under the Uniform Firearms Act and resisting arrest; he moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an illegal search.
- The suppression court granted suppression concluding Devlin lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk and that the bulge alone was insufficient; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to frisk Davis under Terry | Totality of circumstances (2 a.m., high‑crime area, two men over unconscious person, possible rifling, bulge in pocket) justified a frisk for officer safety | Bulge and the scene were consistent with innocent explanations; no visible injuries or observed weapon; frisk was unlawful | Court reversed: reasonable suspicion existed to justify the Terry frisk |
| Whether pat‑down was limited to officer‑safety search (i.e., permissible scope) | Frisk was precautionary and aimed at detecting weapons and protecting officers/others | Frisk was an unlawful search because detention was not supported | Court treated pat‑down as a valid Terry frisk and discovery of the gun lawful |
| Whether evidence (gun) must be suppressed as fruit of illegal search | If frisk unlawful, gun must be suppressed | Gun should be suppressed because frisk lacked probable cause/ reasonable suspicion | Because frisk was lawful, suppression was erroneous and reversal required |
| Whether suppression court erred in analyzing facts in isolation instead of totality | Officer’s training/experience and reasonable inferences must be considered together | Court relied on isolated facts and possible innocent explanations to deny justification | Court held suppression court erred by not applying totality of circumstances and deferencing officer’s inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry frisk standard; officer safety justification for limited pat‑down)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (reasonable suspicion is a lower, less reliable standard than probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (combination of innocent facts can justify further police investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 (totality of the circumstances and officer inferences in reasonable suspicion analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Fell, 901 A.2d 542 (discussion of reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 89 A.3d 679 (Terry frisk purpose and scope)
- Commonwealth v. Maxon, 798 A.2d 761 (bulge alone may be insufficient absent other facts)
- In the Interest of L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (scope of appellate review limited to suppression‑hearing evidence)