Commonwealth v. Morrison
166 A.3d 357
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 18, 2015, two uniformed Philadelphia officers received a radio report of a robbery by two black males in black hoodies, blue jeans, and masks at 1700 Susquehanna Ave.
- About five minutes later officers saw Morrison and another man walking five blocks away; Morrison wore a black hoodie and gray sweatpants.
- Officers stopped their marked patrol car, Officer Parker ordered both men to stop; Morrison kept walking briefly, then was ordered again by Officer Hogan and told to remove his hands from his pockets.
- As Officer Hogan approached (approximately two feet away), he observed a weighted pocket and the butt of a handgun protruding; the firearm was seized and Morrison was arrested.
- Morrison moved to suppress the gun, arguing the stop/search lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied suppression, convicted him after a bench trial, and sentenced him to 4–8 years. The Superior Court reversed, vacated the sentence, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Morrison's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ interaction constituted an investigative detention requiring reasonable suspicion | The stop was a seizure because two uniformed officers in a marked car twice ordered him to stop; he was not free to leave | The encounter was a mere encounter or, if a stop, was supported by reasonable suspicion from proximity to crime, clothing match, and nervous behavior | The court held it was an investigative detention (a stop) because officers twice ordered him to stop |
| Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Morrison based on the radio tip and observations | The anonymous tip (limited description) and Morrison’s mere presence and nervousness were insufficient to create reasonable suspicion | The tip and partial clothing match, proximity in time/location, and his behavior provided reasonable suspicion; the tip could be eyewitness-derived | The court held reasonable suspicion was lacking: the anonymous radio tip was too vague/unreliable and Morrison’s conduct (nervousness, walking away) did not corroborate criminal activity |
| Whether the gun was lawfully observed/seized under the plain-view/plain-feel doctrine during the detention | The firearm resulted from an unlawful stop and any observation/seizure must be suppressed | The gun was observed during a lawful investigative detention and thus lawfully seized | The court suppressed the gun: because the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the subsequent observation/seizure was unlawful |
| Remedy following suppression ruling | Suppress the firearm and vacate conviction | Opposed; argued evidence was admissible | Court vacated judgment of sentence and remanded for further proceedings without the suppressed evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (three-tier encounter framework and Terry analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Ayala, 791 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Super. 2002) (reasonableness of stops and anonymous tip corroboration)
- Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2014) (pursuit/command to stop constitutes a seizure; analysis of anonymous tips)
- Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 2000) (nervousness alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1997) (anonymous radio calls, without more, do not justify investigatory stops)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2000) (requirement that personal conduct must substantiate suspected criminal activity)