203 A.3d 272
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Police lawfully stopped a Mazda minivan for a traffic violation; Dunham was a rear-seat passenger.
- While the vehicle was stopping, Dunham fled on foot before officers gave any clear affirmative verbal command.
- Officers pursued; during the foot chase Dunham discarded a 9mm handgun and a small bag of marijuana, later recovered by police.
- Suppression court found no commands were given to Dunham and granted his motion to suppress the discarded evidence.
- Commonwealth appealed, arguing a passenger in a lawful traffic stop is seized and officers need not issue verbal commands before controlling passenger movement or pursuing a fleeing passenger.
- Superior Court reversed the suppression order and remanded, holding Dunham was lawfully seized by the traffic stop and pursuit was a lawful continuation of that seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Dunham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence discarded during flight must be suppressed because police did not give a verbal command before pursuit | Passenger was seized by the lawful traffic stop; officers need not give a verbal command to detain or pursue a passenger | A passenger lacks the same notice as a driver and police must give actual verbal notice that he must stay; without verbal command the seizure/pursuit was unlawful | Reversed suppression: passenger was seized by the stop; no verbal command required before pursuit |
| Whether unprovoked flight in a high-crime area supplied reasonable suspicion for pursuit | Flight from a lawful stop (and generally from police) supplies reasonable grounds to pursue; control over passengers during stops eliminates need for separate suspicion | Flight alone is insufficient absent police provision of notice or preexisting suspicion of that passenger | Issue waived on appeal (Commonwealth failed to raise below); court noted claim lacked merit because passenger already seized by stop |
| Whether precedent authorizes control over passengers’ movement without additional suspicion or commands | Pratt and related precedent allow officers to control movement of all occupants during a lawful stop; verbal commands are permissive, not mandatory | Authority to control requires actual notice to passenger (so he knows he is not free to leave) | Precedent allows control without additional verbal commands; activation of emergency lights and the stop itself provided sufficient notice; pursuit was lawful continuation of seizure |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pratt, 930 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 2007) (a traffic stop is a seizure of driver and occupants and officers may control passenger movement)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1997) (officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle for officer safety)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (officers may order driver out of car during lawful traffic stop)
- Commonwealth v. Livingstone, 174 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2017) (seizure determined by totality of circumstances; emergency lights convey that person is not free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010) (items abandoned during pursuit are fruits of seizure and admissible only if pursuit was supported by reasonable suspicion)
- In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 2001) (unprovoked flight in high-crime area can create reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop)
- Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 853 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. 2004) (flight from marked patrol car in high-crime area justified pursuit and admission of discarded contraband)