Commonwealth v. Ibrahim
127 A.3d 819
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On July 19, 2013, Officer Marrero (plain clothes, unmarked car) observed Ibrahim riding a bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street in Philadelphia.
- Marrero yelled “Stop” but did not identify himself as police while catching up; Ibrahim sped away, turned onto other streets, then dismounted, removed a firearm from his waistband, and discarded it.
- Marrero then announced that he was police, chased, apprehended Ibrahim, and recovered the discarded firearm.
- Ibrahim moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the stop was pretextual and the abandonment was forced; the trial court granted suppression.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing Marrero had probable cause to stop for the one-way violation and therefore the firearm was admissible.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the officer had probable cause to effectuate the stop and the abandonment was not the product of unconstitutional police conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer needed probable cause or only reasonable suspicion to stop Ibrahim for riding the wrong way on a one-way street | Commonwealth: the offense (wrong-way on one-way street) is complete upon observation and therefore probable cause was required and existed | Ibrahim: the observed violation was de minimis / required further observation; stop was pretextual | Probable cause is required for §3308 wrong-way violations; officer had probable cause when he observed Ibrahim traveling the wrong way |
| Whether the stop was pretextual | Commonwealth: record shows Marrero stopped Ibrahim solely for the traffic violation | Ibrahim: officer used a pretextual traffic stop to investigate other crimes | No record support for a pretextual motive; stop was not pretextual |
| Whether Ibrahim’s discarding of the gun was a product of illegal police conduct (i.e., forced abandonment) | Commonwealth: because the stop was lawful, abandonment was voluntary and evidence admissible | Ibrahim: because the stop was unlawful, abandonment was forced and evidence must be suppressed | Because the stop was lawful (probable cause existed), abandonment was not forced; firearm admissible |
| Standard of review for suppression legal conclusions | Commonwealth: appellate court reviews trial court’s legal conclusions de novo | Ibrahim: N/A (trial court findings should control) | Appellate court reviews factual findings for support and legal conclusions de novo; applied and reversed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 994 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (distinguishes offenses requiring probable cause from those permitting Terry-level stops)
- Commonwealth v. Gleason, 785 A.2d 983 (Pa. 2001) (sustained observation required for some DUI probable cause determinations; superseded in part by §6308(b))
- Commonwealth v. Byrd, 987 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abandonment admissible unless produced by illegal police conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 585 A.2d 988 (Pa. 1991) (definition of probable cause standard)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (framework for investigatory stops)