¶ 1 Appellant, James L. Key, appeals from the judgment of sentence of five (5) days to twelve (12) months incarceration entered April 19, 2001. After review, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶2 The Trial Court has set forth the facts underlying Appellant’s conviction in its opinion as follows:
[0]n February 25, 2000 at approximately 10:30 a.m., Officers Robert Bickhаm and Nelson Berrios of the Reading Police Department were working undercover as part of the High Crime Unit plain clothes detail in the area of Front and Elm Streets. 1 (N.T. Omnibus Pretrial Hearing Tr. 02/01/01, p. 4, 11-12). *286 While patrolling in an unmarked car, the police observed the [Appellant] talking with another male. Upon seeing the undercover officers watching, the [Appellant] quickly turned and walked north on North Front Street. Id. at 5, 12. Officer Biсkham exited the unmarked vehicle, approached the defendant, and queried, “[H]ey, could I talk to you bud [?]” Id. at 5. The [Appellant] replied, “[S]ure, no problem,” Id. at 6.
Officer Berrios drove up to where Officer Bickham and the [Appellant] were conversing and exited the vehicle. Id. at 12. Officer Bickham identified himself and displayed his badge. He explained to the [Appellant] that he and Officer Berrios were working undercover in high crime areas and stоpping people to see what they were doing and whether they lived in the area. Id. at 6. The [Appellant] provided [Officer Bick-ham] his name, date of birth, and address as 220 North Front Street. The [Appellant] explained that he was on his way to a district justice office to take care of some warrants or tickets. Officer Bickham ran the [Appellant’s] name through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer and informed the [Appellant] that he found nothing outstanding at the district justice office. Id. at 6, 12. At this point Officer Bick-ham shook hands with the [Appellant] and told him he was free to leave. Id. at 7, 9-10,12.
Officer Berrios then asked the [Appellant] if he had any drugs or drug paraphernalia on him because he was in a high drug area. The [Appellant] stated no and then went through his pockets showing that he hаd nothing on him. Id. at 12, 15. Officer Berrios asked the [Appellant] if he could double check his pockets. The [Appellant] relied, “Go ahead, I have nothing to hide.” Id. at 13. Officer Berrios found a cellophane packet of suspected heroin in the [Appellant’s] left jacket sleeve pocket. The cellophane packet was seized and Officer Berrios conducted a Vаltox test on the packet contents which yielded a positive result for heroin.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/31/2001, at 1-2.
¶ 3 Appellant was arrested. Prior to trial he filed an omnibus pretrial suppression motion on the basis that he was stopped and searched-without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Trial Court conducted a suрpression hearing on February 1, 2001 at which Officers Bickham and Berrios testified. Subsequently, the Court denied the suppression motion. Appellant proceeded to a bench trial and was convicted on April 19, 2001 of possession of a controlled substance (heroin). 2 This timely appeal followed.
¶ 4 On appeal to our Court Appellant presents one issue for our consideration:
A. DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING AN INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION NOT BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY APPELLANT, WHEN ANY CONSENT OBTAINED DURING THE ENCOUNTER IS TAINTED, IS NOT VOLUNTARY AND IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE SEARCH?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
When reviewing the suppression court’s denial of a motion to suppress, *287 we must first ascertain whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings. See Commonwealth v. Dangle,700 A.2d 538 , 539 (Pa.Super.1997). When reviewing rulings of a suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. See Commonwealth v. Lynch,773 A.2d 1240 , 1243 (Pa.Super.2001). We are bound by the suppression court’s findings if they are supported by the record, and may only reverse the suppression court if the legal conclusions drawn from the findings are in error. See Commonwealth v. Perry,710 A.2d 1183 , 1184 (Pa.Super.1998).
Commonwealth v. Ortiz,
¶ 5 Appellant argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted since the officers had no warrant and had seen nothing giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of Appellant’s involvement in criminal activity which would have justified stopping Appellant on a public sidewalk. As a consequence, Appellant maintains that the consent which he gave to being searched was the taintеd product of his illegal detention and could not justify the subsequent search of his person. After review, we conclude that Appellant is correct, and the Trial Court erred in failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search.
¶ 6 “Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Commonwealth v. Cook
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be seаrched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Const.Amend. IV. The Pennsylvania Constitution provides:
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supрorted by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.
Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8. Warrantless searches and seizures are therefore unreasonable per se, unless conducted pursuant to a specifically established and well-delineated exception to the warrant requirement.
In the Interest of N.L.,
As our Court has further reminded:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been vigilant in the protection of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article I, Seсtion 8 of our state Constitution. On repeated occasions, the Court has admonished that:
*288 The seriousness of criminal activity under investigation, whether it is the sale of drugs or the commission of a violent crime, can never be used as justification for ignoring or abandoning the constitutional right of every individual in this Commonwealth to be free from intrusions upon his or her personal liberty absent probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Polo,
[
Commonwealth v. Beasley,
The first of these [interactions] is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest. Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probablе cause.
Commonwealth v. Phinn,
¶ 7 In the instant case, the Trial Court held, and the Commonwealth now argues, that the nature of the interaction between Appellant and the officers amounted to nothing more then a “mere encounter.” By contrast, Appellant asserts that the officers subjected him to an investigative detention. Our Supreme Court has recognized that “the line between a mere encounter and аn investigative detention cannot be precisely defined because of the myriad of daily situations in which policemen and citizens confront each other on the street.”
Matos, supra
at 457-458,
¶ 8 Our Supreme Court has adopted an objective test for determining whеther a police officer has restrained the liberty of a citizen such that a seizure occurs. The pivotal inquiry in making this determination is “whether a reasonable [person] innocent of any crime, would have thought he [or she] was being restrained had he [or she] been in the defendant’s shoes.”
Matos, supra
at 457,
¶ 9 A review of the totality of the circumstances surrounding Appellant’s initial interaction between himself and Officer Bickham compels the conclusion that Appellant was subjected to an investigative detention and not simply a mere encounter. After requesting to speak with Appellant, Officer Bickham identified himself to Appellant as a police officer by showing him his badge. N.T. Suppression Hearing, supra at 6. Officer Bickham testified that he then specifically informed Appellant that “we’re working undercover high crime areas and we’re out today just stopping people in these areas to see what they are doing; if they live in the area....” Id. at 6 (emphasis supplied). Officer Bickham acknowledged that he told Appellant that they were stopping people because it was a “drug area.” Id. at 9. Officer Bickham then requested personal information from Appellant including his name, date of birth and address and used that personal information to run a criminal background cheek on Appellant via police radio while Appellant waited. Id. at 6, 9. While Officer Bickham was running the check on Appellant, Officer Berrios pulled his car into close proximity with Appellant and joined Officer Bickham on the sсene. Id. at 12. Clearly a person in Appellant’s position who had been expressly informed by a police officer that he was being “stopped” as part of an investigation into drug activity and who had his background checked for prior criminal activity by that officer via police radio would not have reasonably felt free to terminate the encounter with the officer and walk аway. When an individual has been informed by a police officer that he or she has been “stopped” the reasonable implication of such as statement to the individual is that his or her freedom of movement has been restrained by the officer. This fact, coupled with the subsequent taking by the officer of Appellant’s personal information for the purpose of a criminal background check, would tend to lead any reasonable person to believe that he or she was the express target of a police investigation into criminal activity and, as such, to feel that his or her liberty was being restrained as a result of the investigation. Thus, Appellant was subject to an investigative detention by Officer Bickham.
¶ 10 As discussed,
supra,
it is axiomatic that an investigative detention of an individual must be supportеd by reasonable suspicion of that individual’s involvement in criminal activity. Here there was absolutely no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on Appellant’s part. When Appellant was first observed by the police officers he was merely present on a public sidewalk in a city neighborhood talking to another individual, a perfectly ordinary and constitutionally protected activity. The officers witnessed no transaction or exchange between the two individuals nor did they observe Appellant to be in outward possession of anything which would suggest his involvement in drug activity. The fact that Appellant was merely present in a “high crime area” in no way establishes his involvement in criminal activity.
See In re D.M.,
¶ 11 Since we have determined that Appellant was subjected to an unlawful detention we must examine whether his consent to search his person was the product of the unlawful detention. As our Supreme Court has recognized:
Where ... a consensual search has been preceded by an unlawful seizure, the еxclusionary rule requires suppression of the evidence obtained absent a demonstration by the government both of a sufficient break in the causal chain between the illegality and the seizure of evidence, thus assuring that the search is not an exploitation of the prior illegality, and of voluntariness.
Commonwealth v. Strickler,
¶ 12 In the case at bar, after Officer Bickham finished his criminal background check, he told Appellant that hе was free to go and shook hands with him. However immediately thereafter Officer Berrios asked Appellant if he had any drugs or other contraband on his person. Officer Berrios told Appellant that he was asking this question because Appellant was in a high drug area. After Appellant replied that he did not possess any contraband and turned his pockets out, Officer Berrios then requested Appellant’s consent to con *291 duct a further search of his clothing and person.
¶ 13 Clearly there were no intervening spatial or temporal factors to dispel the coercive atmosphere of the initial unlawful detention. Officer Bickham and Officer Berrios were still in their identical locations when Officer Berrios’s request to search was made and there was almost no passage of time between Officer Bickham’s statement that Appellаnt was free to leave and Officer Berrios’s request to search. Such an inquiry on Officer Berrios’ part as to whether Appellant carried drugs or contraband, after informing Appellant that the request was made because of Appellant’s presence in a high drug area, would unquestionably appear to a person in Appellant’s position to have been related to the stаted purpose of the initial detention i.e., an investigation into criminal activity involving drugs. Consequently, Officer Berrios’s request to search for drugs and related contraband was clearly inconsistent with Officer Bickham’s statement that Appellant was “free to go” and, instead, indicated that the investigation related to the initial stop was ongoing.
¶ 14 Moreover, neither officer ever informed Appellant of his right to refuse to be searched. Although there is no explicit requirement that a police officer who seeks the consent of an individual to be searched always advise the individual that he or she may refuse to give consent to such a search, the absence of the conveyance of this information by the officer is a factor a court may consider in assessing whether the individual’s consent to the search was truly voluntary.
Strickler, supra
at 79,
¶ 15 Judgment of sentence is vacated and the ease is remanded for a new trial *292 absent the suppressed evidence. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Notes
. According to Officer Bickham, his superiors at the Reading Police Department had instructed he and Officer Berrios to go to this area to check out drug activity and "stop and question people” and "see what they are doing in the area.” N.T. Suppression Hearing, 2/1/2001, at 4.
. 35 P.S. § 780-113(l)(16).