Commonwealth v. Newsome, 170 A.3d 1151

On Sept. 22, 2015 Lt. Robert Brockenbrough responded to an anonymous radio report that several men were "passing around a gun" on Croskey Street in Philadelphia, an area with frequent shootings.
Upon arrival he saw a group of men; Newsome separated and began walking away. Brockenbrough, in uniform and in a marked car (no lights/siren), asked Newsome to "come here" to talk; Newsome declined and continued walking.
While radioing for backup, Brockenbrough observed from about 8–10 feet away Newsome reach into his waistband, remove an object that appeared to be a handgun, and place it in a nearby flowerpot.
An officer from the arriving wagon recovered the firearm; Newsome was arrested and charged with firearms offenses under Pennsylvania law.
Newsome moved to suppress the gun, arguing Brockenbrough had unlawfully seized him before the gun was produced; the trial court granted suppression without written findings of fact.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reversed, holding the encounter was initially a mere encounter and only became a lawful investigative detention after Brockenbrough observed Newsome discard the gun.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brockenbrough "seized" Newsome before Newsome discarded the gun, rendering the stop unlawful and the gun suppressible	Commonwealth: Brockenbrough did not effect a seizure by merely asking Newsome to stop; no show of authority, weapons, lights, or coercive tone	Newsome: Asking him to stop while in uniform and near other officers amounted to a seizure lacking reasonable suspicion	Superior Court: No seizure occurred before the discard; initial contact was a mere encounter and became a lawful investigative detention once Newsome was seen discarding the gun; suppression reversed

Korn v. Commonwealth, 139 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review on Commonwealth appeal from suppression)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (reasonable suspicion totality-of-the-circumstances and weight given to officer inferences)
Bostick v. Commonwealth, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Fourth Amendment and Article I, §8 protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)
Kendall v. Commonwealth, 976 A.2d 503 (Pa. Super. 2009) (distinction among mere encounter, investigative detention, custodial arrest)
Hughes v. Commonwealth, 908 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (innocent facts may collectively justify further investigation)
Ranson v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2014) (anonymous tip alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
Mendenhall v. United States, 715 A.2d 1117 (Pa. 1998) (objective test for seizure—would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
Collins v. Commonwealth, 950 A.2d 1041 (Pa. Super. 2008) (non-exclusive factors to assess whether contact constituted a seizure)