J-A31036-16
2017 PA Super 194
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
TYSHIR MORRISON
Appellant No. 2416 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 27, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001150-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MOULTON , J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
OPINION BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2017
Appellant, Tyshir Morrison, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his
bench trial convictions of persons not to possess firearms,1 firearms not to
be carried without a license,2 and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia.3
Appellant alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the
gun found in his pocket. We reverse the suppression order.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
On May 21, 2015, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion to suppress the
discovery of the firearm. The trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s
motion on May 26, 2015. Officer Joseph Hogan testified to the following on
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.
J-A31036-16
direct examination. On January 18, 2015, he and Officer Sean Parker were
on patrol in Philadelphia in their police uniforms and marked patrol car.
N.T., 5/26/15, at 6-7. At approximately 8:25 p.m., the officers received a
radio call from an unknown source about a robbery with a firearm of a store
at 1700 Susquehanna Avenue in Philadelphia. Id. at 7-8. The perpetrators
were described as two black males wearing black hoodies, blue jeans, and
masks. Id. Approximately five minutes later, the officers saw Appellant and
another male walking along the 1700 block of West Lehigh Avenue, which is
about five blocks away from where the robbery occurred. Id. at 8-9.
Appellant was wearing a black hoodie and gray sweatpants.4 Id. at 9.
There were no other individuals or parked vehicles on the block. Id. at 9-
11.
Officer Hogan was slowly driving the patrol car as he and Officer
Parker surveyed Appellant and the other male. Id. at 10-11. Officer Hogan
then stopped the patrol car about five feet away from the two males. Id. at
11. Officer Parker got out of the patrol car and told the two males to stop.
Id. The other male stopped walking while Appellant, who appeared nervous,
turned his back towards the patrol car and started slowly walking away from
the officers. Id. at 12.
4
No description of Appellant’s companion was given.
-2-
J-A31036-16
Officer Hogan exited the patrol car and also told Appellant to stop. Id.
at 12-13. Appellant complied and Officer Hogan approached Appellant and
told him to remove his hands from his pockets. Id. at 13. Appellant initially
complied, but put his hands back in his pockets while speaking to Officer
Hogan. Id. Officer Hogan noticed that Appellant’s pocket was weighed
down and saw the handle of a black handgun protruding from his pocket.
Id. Officer Hogan seized the firearm and arrested Appellant. Id. at 15.
Officer Hogan further testified on cross-examination:
[Defense Counsel]. Okay. Now Officer, you said the flash
you received was for two black men in black hoodies,
mask, and blue jeans, correct?
[Officer Hogan]. Correct.
Q. Okay. So in that flash, you didn’t have any mention of
the age of the men?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Nothing for height?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. No weight?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. And Officer, the fact that they matched this description
is the only reason you stopped them, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. When you first saw them on the street, they were just
walking?
A. They were.
-3-
J-A31036-16
* * *
Q. . . . And you gave the information to prepare the
PARS, correct?
A. I did, but I did not prepare it.
Q. Officer, you would agree with me there is no
information about him turning and then walking away?
A. I didn’t prepare this, but I did not see any information
about his turning his back.
Q. Thank you.
Now, Officer, when you ordered [Appellant] to stop,
you had not seen the butt of a gun at that point, correct?
A. I did not. Until I actually approached [Appellant].
Q. And as you were approaching him, that is when you
noticed the weight of the pocket, correct?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And you didn’t notice the butt of the gun until you had
actually walked around and were facing [Appellant],
correct?
A. When he turned around, I approached [Appellant]. I
told [Appellant] to take his hands out of his pockets, and I
could see the butt―well his pocket weighed down. When I
looked at the pocket, it was actually the butt of the gun
was sticking out of it.
Q. Officer, you are face-to-face with [Appellant] at this
point, correct?
A. Yes. Approximately 2 feet away.
Q. Okay. Officer, you never saw him run, correct?
A. He did not run.
-4-
J-A31036-16
Id. at 17, 19-20.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s
suppression motion and immediately proceeded to a bench trial. Thereafter,
the court found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned firearms offenses.
The court sentenced Appellant on July 27, 2015, to four to eight years’
imprisonment for persons not to possess firearms, with no further penalty on
the remaining convictions. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on
August 6, 2015. The court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant
timely complied.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Did not the trial court err in denying [A]ppellant’s motion
to suppress physical evidence, insofar as [A]ppellant was
stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant argues his motion to suppress the firearm should have been
granted because he was stopped without reasonable suspicion in violation of
the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. Appellant alleges he was
unlawfully seized by the police officers without reasonable suspicion because
there was no criminal activity afoot at the time of the stop. Appellant
maintains no reasonable person in Appellant’s situation would have believed
he was free to leave, as he was approached by two uniformed police officers
in a marked patrol car and told twice to stop. Appellant claims there is no
-5-
J-A31036-16
evidence in the record that he matched the general description of the
suspects, which was provided to the police by an unknown source. Appellant
concludes this Court should vacate his judgment of sentence and remand for
a new trial excluding the illegally seized evidence.
In its brief, the Commonwealth argues the interaction between the
police and Appellant and his companion was a mere encounter. The
Commonwealth alleges the trial court properly determined it was the
officers’ duty to stop Appellant and the other male because of their proximity
in time and location to the robbery, they matched the reported race of the
suspects, and Appellant’s clothes partially matched the description of the
suspects. The Commonwealth claims Appellant and the other male were not
physically restrained in anyway, that there was no indication of coercion
because the officers did not activate their lights and sirens, and Appellant
and the other male were told to stop in a normal tone. The Commonwealth
asserts that, viewing the totality of the circumstances, the interaction
between the officers and Appellant did not rise to a restraint on Appellant’s
liberty that would cause a reasonable person to believe he was not free to
leave. Furthermore, the Commonwealth argues that the mere encounter
rose to an investigative detention that was supported by reasonable
suspicion based on Officer Hogan’s observations of Appellant’s nervous
behavior, his walking away from the officers, and the recent report of a
robbery by two men in the same area. Finally, the Commonwealth contends
-6-
J-A31036-16
that the suspects’ description provided in the radio call suggested that the
tip was provided by an eyewitness, not an anonymous source. The
Commonwealth, thus, maintains that Officer Hogan made a plain view
observation of Appellant’s weighed down pocket and the protruding gun
handle during a lawful investigative detention. Therefore, the
Commonwealth asserts that the trial court properly denied Appellant’s
motion to suppress.
For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s denial of
Appellant’s suppression motion, vacate his judgment of sentence, and
remand.
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the
denial of a suppression motion is
limited to determining whether the suppression
court’s factual findings are supported by the record
and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those
facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth
prevailed before the suppression court, we may
consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth
and so much of the evidence for the defense as
remains uncontradicted when read in the context of
the record as a whole. Where the suppression
court’s factual findings are supported by the record,
we are bound by these findings and may reverse
only if the legal conclusions are erroneous. The
suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding
on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine
if the suppression court properly applied the law to
the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts
below are subject to our plenary review.
[Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa.
2010)]. Moreover, appellate courts are limited to
reviewing only the evidence presented at the suppression
-7-
J-A31036-16
hearing when examining a ruling on a pre-trial motion to
suppress. See In re L.J., [] 79 A.3d 1073, [1080] ([Pa.]
2013).
Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal
denied, 117 A.3d 296 (Pa. 2015).
The Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution
provides, “the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. Likewise, Article I, Section 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution states, “[t]he people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions
from unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” Pa.
Const. Art. I, § 8. Under Pennsylvania law, there are three
levels of encounter that aid courts in conducting search
and seizure analyses.
The first of these 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 probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765, 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)
(some citations omitted), appeal denied, 117 A.3d 295 (Pa. 2015).
“If a reasonable person does not feel free to terminate an encounter
with the police and leave the scene, then a seizure of that person has
occurred.” Commonwealth v. Ayala, 791 A.2d 1202, 1208 (Pa. Super.
2002) (citation omitted). However,
-8-
J-A31036-16
[t]he Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops .
. . when a law enforcement officer has a particularized and
objective basis for suspecting the particular person
stopped of criminal activity. It is axiomatic that to
establish reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to
articulate something more than an inchoate and
unparticularized suspicion or hunch. . . . [A]s the Supreme
Court has long recognized, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 []
(1968) is an exception to the textual standard of probable
cause. A suppression court is required to take[] into
account the totality of the circumstances—the whole
picture. When conducting a Terry analysis, it is
incumbent on the suppression court to inquire, based on
all of the circumstances known to the officer ex ante,
whether an objective basis for the seizure was present. In
addition, an officer may conduct a limited search, i.e., a
pat-down of the person stopped, if the officer possesses
reasonable suspicion that the person stopped may be
armed and dangerous.
Carter, 105 A.3d at 768-69 (quotation marks and some citations omitted).
In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists for an
investigative detention, or as it is also known in the
common legal vernacular, a “Terry stop,” the inquiry is
the same under both the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Article 1, § 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. “The fundamental inquiry is an objective
one, namely, whether ‘the facts available to the officer at
the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable
caution in the belief that the action taken was
appropriate.’” In order to determine whether the police
had a reasonable suspicion to subject an individual to an
investigative detention, the totality of the factual
circumstances which existed at the time of the
investigative detention must be considered. “Among the
factors to be considered in establishing a basis for
reasonable suspicion are tips, the reliability of the
informants, time, location, and suspicious activity,
including flight.”
Ayala, 791 A.2d at 1208 (citations omitted).
-9-
J-A31036-16
“[E]ven where the circumstances surrounding an individual’s conduct
suggest ongoing illegality, the individual may not be detained unless his or
her personal conduct substantiates involvement in that activity.”
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621, 626 (Pa. Super. 2000)
(citations omitted). “This standard . . . requires a particularized and
objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal
activity.” Ayala, 791 A.2d at 1209 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
[I]n order for a stop to be reasonable under Terry [], the
police officer’s reasonable and articulable belief that
criminal activity was afoot must be linked with his
observation of suspicious or irregular behavior on the part
of the particular defendant stopped. Mere presence near a
high crime area . . . or in the vicinity of a recently reported
crime . . . does not justify a stop under Terry.
Conversely, an officer’s observation of irregular behavior
without a concurrent belief that crime is afoot also renders
a stop unreasonable.
Id. (citations omitted). A police officer’s assessment that an individual
appears nervous “does not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigative
detention.” Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633, 637 (Pa. Super.
2000) (citing Commonwealth v. Sierra, 723 A.2d 644 (Pa. 1999)).
Moreover, “[o]ur Supreme Court has held that where a citizen approached
by a police officer is ordered to stop . . . obviously a ‘stop’ occurs.” Ranson,
103 A.3d at 77 (holding that the appellant was subjected to an investigative
detention at the time the police officers commanded him to stop) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). “[P]ursuit by police constitutes a seizure
under the law of this Commonwealth[; therefore,] a person may be seized
- 10 -
J-A31036-16
even though he is moving away from the police.” Id. (citation omitted).
Thus, the issue is whether police officers possess reasonable suspicion that
the suspect was engaged in criminal conduct when they issued a command
to stop. Id.
Furthermore, when analyzing a tip from an unknown source “we must
determine whether under ‘the totality of the circumstances’ the informant’s
tip established the necessary reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was
afoot.” Id. at 78 (citation omitted). “[Both] quantity and quality of
information are considered when assessing the totality of the circumstances.
If information has a low degree of reliability, then more information is
required to establish reasonable suspicion.” Id. (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
[A] radio dispatch based on information provided from an
informant whose identity is unknown, and which accuses
an individual of involvement in criminal activity, will not,
standing alone, provide the requisite basis for an
investigatory detention of a person who happens to match
the physical description of the accused individual provided
by the tipster. . . .
Because of its unreliability, an anonymous radio call
alone is insufficient to establish a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity. The Court in
[Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571 (Pa.
1997)] further explained that the fact that the police
proceeded to the designated location and saw a
person matching the description in the call did not
corroborate any alleged criminal activity. Since
anyone can describe a person who is standing in a
particular location, something more is needed to
corroborate the caller’s allegations of criminal
conduct. In the typical anonymous caller situation,
- 11 -
J-A31036-16
the police will need an independent basis to establish
reasonable suspicion.
. . . When the police receive unverified information
that a person is engaged in illegal activity, the police
may observe the suspect and conduct an
investigation. If police surveillance produces a
reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, the suspect
may be stopped and questioned.
Ayala, 791 A.2d at 1209-10 (quotation marks and some citations omitted).
Instantly, we must first examine whether the encounter between
Appellant and Officers Hogan and Parker rose to an investigative detention.
See Carter, 105 A.3d at 768. Appellant and the other male were walking
down the street five blocks away from where the robbery occurred when
Officers Hogan and Parker stopped their patrol vehicle behind the two men
because they matched the suspects’ description. N.T. at 10-11, 17. Officer
Parker then alighted from the patrol vehicle in full uniform and told the two
males to stop. Id. at 11. Appellant continued walking while his companion
stopped to talk to Officer Parker. Id. at 12. When Officer Hogan saw
Appellant walking away, he then got out of the vehicle in full uniform and
again told Appellant to stop. Id. at 12-13. Under these circumstances, it is
apparent that when the officers twice ordered Appellant to stop he was
immediately subjected to an investigative detention. See Ranson, 103
A.3d at 77. Thus, a reasonable person in Appellant’s situation would not
have felt free to terminate the encounter and leave the scene. See Ayala,
791 A.2d at 1208. Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s assertion that the
- 12 -
J-A31036-16
interaction between the officers and Appellant began as a mere encounter
similar to that in Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2014) is
unavailing. Cf. Lyles, 97 A.3d at 306 (holding interaction in which a
uniformed police officer approached the appellant and requested his
identification did not amount to more than a mere encounter).
Having concluded that Appellant was subjected to an investigative
detention when the officers told him to stop, we must next examine whether
Officers Hogan and Parker possessed reasonable suspicion that Appellant
and the other male were engaged in criminal conduct when the officers
issued the command to stop. See Ranson, 103 A.3d at 77. At the
suppression hearing, Officer Hogan testified that Appellant and the other
male were merely walking down the street when the officers pulled over
their patrol vehicle. N.T. at 17. He further testified that Appellant did not
run but instead began slowly walking away while the other man spoke with
Officer Parker. Id. at 12, 20. Officer Hogan did not notice that Appellant’s
pocket appeared to be weighed down or that there was a handle of a gun
sticking of his pocket until after he told Appellant to stop, approached him,
and asked him to remove his hands from his pockets. Id. at 19. Officer
Hogan further testified that the only reason why they stopped Appellant and
the other male was because they matched the description of the robbery
suspects. Id. at 17. Nevertheless, the suspects’ description was provided
by an unknown source and the radio call only described the suspects as two
- 13 -
J-A31036-16
black males wearing black hoodies, blue jeans and masks.5 Id. at 7-8. No
further physical description of the suspects was provided.6 Appellant, a
black male, was wearing a black hoodie with grey sweatpants when the
officers stopped him. Id. at 9. Thus, under the totality of the
circumstances, the quality and quantity of the information provided by the
unknown source was insufficiently reliable to establish reasonable suspicion.
See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 130 A.3d 38, 46-47 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(holding an anonymous tip that the appellant was selling drugs and had
been cited for driving with a suspended license was a bare bones allegation
that fell short of the quality and quantity of information required to
corroborate a search of the appellant’s residence); see also Ranson, 103
A.3d at 78; Ayala, 791 A.2d at 1209-10; DeHart, 745 A.2d at 637
(determining a radio police tip from an unknown source that reported a
suspicious slow moving vehicle was too vague and was unsupported by
indicia of reliability to provide the police officers with reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity for an investigative detention). Moreover, the fact that
5
Although the Commonwealth argues that the tip was provided by an
eyewitness and not an anonymous source, this is pure speculation. See
Commonwealth’s Brief at 17. The Commonwealth failed to present any
evidence at the suppression hearing to prove this allegation; thus, it failed to
meet its burden. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H); see also In re L.J., 79 A.3d at
1080 (stating appellate courts are limited to reviewing only the evidence
presented at the suppression hearing when examining a ruling on a pre-trial
motion to suppress).
6
The Commonwealth presented no testimony regarding the companion’s
clothing.
- 14 -
J-A31036-16
Appellant appeared nervous after the officers stopped and approached him
does not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention. See
DeHart, 745 A.2d at 637.
Viewing the totality of the circumstances, Appellant’s personal conduct
when he was stopped did not support an objective basis that he was
involved in any illegal activity. See Ayala, 791 A.2d at 1208, 1209;
Beasley, 761 A.2d at 626. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying
Appellant’s motion to suppress the firearm, as the officers lacked reasonable
suspicion to stop and search Appellant pursuant to an investigative
detention. See Carter, 105 A.3d at 768-69; Ayala, 791 A.2d at 1208.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s suppression
motion, vacate the judgment of sentence, and remand for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Judgement of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/21/2017
- 15 -