Commonwealth v. Shabezz, 129 A.3d 529

On June 1, 2013, Philadelphia narcotics officers surveilled a McDonald’s/7‑11 area known for narcotics activity; officers followed a tan Nissan and a red Acura to the 7‑11 parking lot.
Officer Burgoon testified he observed Appellee (Shabezz) exit the Acura, lean into the Nissan and perform a cupping/hand‑to‑hand motion consistent with a drug transaction from about 45 feet away; a contemporaneous PARS arrest report described only a brief conversation.
Officers blocked the vehicles as they attempted to leave; Appellee fled on foot, was apprehended, and a pat‑down recovered marijuana and cash.
Police searched the Acura and recovered packaged marijuana, Adderall, packaging materials, a scale, and a stolen 9mm handgun; Appellee was charged with drug and firearms offenses (two consolidated dockets).
The trial court credited the PARS report over Officer Burgoon’s testimony, found no credible observation of a hand‑to‑hand drug transaction, concluded the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, and suppressed the evidence.
The Commonwealth appealed; the appellate court affirmed suppression, holding the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that discarded/vehicle evidence was therefore fruit of an illegal seizure.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
1. Standing/reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle	Commonwealth: Appellee lacked expectation of privacy in the Acura and thus lacked standing to suppress vehicle evidence	Appellee: Challenged constitutionality of the stop/search and sought suppression of evidence found on person and in vehicle	Held: Court did not decide expectation-of-privacy question because it affirmed suppression on illegality of the stop; suppression stands without resolving standing
2. Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop/detain the vehicles	Commonwealth: Pattern of narcotics activity at McDonald’s/7‑11, travel from McDonald’s to 7‑11, the brief conversation, movement of vehicles leaving, and Appellee’s flight supplied reasonable suspicion (and probable cause)	Appellee: Police observed only a conversation; contemporaneous report contradicts the alleged hand‑to‑hand transaction; flight followed an unlawful stop	Held: Crediting the suppression court’s factual findings (PARS report and credibility calls), officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the vehicles; stop was unlawful and evidence suppressed as fruit of illegal stop

Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review for suppression hearings)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (vehicle stop is a seizure of all occupants)
Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (property discarded during flight after illegal detention is suppressible)
In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (review confined to suppression hearing transcript)
Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 751 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2000) (reasonable suspicion inquiry and totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Swanger, 307 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1973) (illegal stop of automobile requires suppression of fruits)