Commonwealth v. Hemingway, 192 A.3d 126

Late-night (≈2 a.m.) encounter in a high-crime area: uniformed officers in a marked patrol car approached Appellee (Hemingway) and asked questions.
Officers asked Appellee to remove his hand from his pocket for officer safety; Appellee refused.
Officers conducted a limited protective frisk and later pursued Appellee when he fled.
Appellee moved to suppress evidence, arguing officers lacked reasonable suspicion and unlawfully seized him.
The trial court granted suppression; the opinion here is a dissent by President Judge Emeritus Stevens arguing the suppression was erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Hemingway)	Held (Dissent)
1. Did the officers’ approach/question constitute a seizure?	Approach and questioning were lawful; no suspicion required to approach.	Approach/question amounted to a seizure absent reasonable suspicion.	Dissent: Approach/question was a mere encounter, not a seizure.
2. Did ordering/reminding Appellee to remove his hand from his pocket convert the encounter into an investigative detention?	Request to show hands is a reasonable officer-safety measure and does not escalate the encounter.	Asking to remove hands escalated the encounter into a detention.	Dissent: Request did not escalate the encounter.
3. Was a limited protective frisk justified after Appellee refused to remove his hand?	Refusal to show hands in a high-crime area at 2 a.m. supported reasonable belief Appellee might be armed and dangerous; frisk justified.	Frisk was not supported by reasonable suspicion and was unlawful.	Dissent: Frisk was justified under Terry and state precedent.
4. Was the officers’ pursuit and seizure after Appellee fled justified?	Unprovoked flight in a high-crime area gives reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop.	Pursuit/seizure were improper because initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion.	Dissent: Flight gave reasonable suspicion; pursuit and stop were justified.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (officers may approach and question persons at random without necessarily seizing them)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (mere approach and questioning in public do not violate the Fourth Amendment)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (limited protective frisk permitted when officer reasonably believes person is armed and dangerous)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (unprovoked flight in high-crime area can support reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 836 A.2d 5 (Pa. 2003) (mere police approach followed by questioning is not a seizure)
In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 2001) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can justify a Terry stop)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 179 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2018) (refusal to remove hands in pocket plus evasive behavior in high-crime area justified frisk)
Commonwealth v. Carter, 779 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2001) (officer-created danger cannot be used to justify escalation; but unprompted concealment can justify frisk)
Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (pursuit of fleeing suspect implicates Article I, § 8 protections)