Commonwealth v. Scarborough
89 A.3d 679
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant was stopped in a high-crime Philadelphia area while riding a bicycle and using a cell phone; officers asked for ID and the defendant kept his hand in his right pocket after being told to remove it.
- Officers pat-searched the defendant for safety; a hard object was felt and the defendant claimed it was a cap gun.
- The defendant spontaneously admitted to carrying a gun after the pocket was searched, and a .22 revolver with four rounds was recovered.
- A suppression motion was filed on February 13, 2012 and denied after an evidentiary hearing on April 19, 2012; trial proceeded to a bench trial.
- The appellant was convicted of firearms not to be carried without a license (6106) and carrying firearms on public streets or public property (6108) and sentenced to five years’ probation on each count, served concurrently.
- This appeal followed challenging the Terry frisk, the grading of 6106, and the timeliness of a supplemental statement of errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the frisk lawful under Terry v. Ohio given reasonable suspicion? | Appellant argues the frisk was unlawful for lack of reasonable suspicion. | Commonwealth contends the circumstances supported reasonable suspicion and protective frisk. | Frisk upheld; police had reasonable suspicion based on location, nervousness, and movements. |
| Does the interaction between 6106 and 6108 violate due process or equal protection? | Appellant claims a geographic disparity makes 6106 unconstitutional when Philly-specific 6108 applies. | Commonwealth asserts rational basis scrutiny and valid public safety rationale for Philadelphia-specific provisions. | Rational basis review applied; statutes rationally address gun violence in Philadelphia; no violation. |
| Should supplemental statement of errors be deemed timely? | Appellant contends issues raised in supplemental statement were timely. | Commonwealth asserts issues lacked merit and analysis was moot. | moot; the primary suppression analysis supports the ruling; supplemental issue meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clemens, 66 A.3d 373 (Pa. Super. 2013) (pa. superior court on protective frisk standards and totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Buchert, 68 A.3d 911 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reasonable suspicion factors in night-time stop; furtive movements; nervousness)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 713 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1998) (hands in pocket escalating encounter to stop and frisk)
- Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545 (Pa. 2000) (totality of circumstances in reasonable suspicion analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Bavusa, 574 Pa. 620 (Pa. 2003) (geographic disparity and equal protection considerations in §6106/6108)
- Commonwealth v. Mendozajr, 71 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Super. 2013) (contemporaneous §6108 violation constitutes another criminal violation for grading under §6106(a)(2))
- Commonwealth v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010) (context for Philadelphia’s gun laws and policing)