No Forced Abandonment: Superior Court Upholds Recovery of Gun Discarded During Police Chase
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
In a recent published opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a Philadelphia trial judge’s decision to suppress a firearm that the defendant discarded while fleeing from police. The case, Commonwealth v. Joyner, clarifies the line between a mere encounter and an investigatory detention, and it reinforces that evidence abandoned during flight is admissible where police had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant before they discarded some kind of contraband.
The Facts of Joyner
The defendant faced charges including prohibited possession of a firearm (VUFA § 6105), carrying without a license (VUFA § 6106), carrying on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA § 6108), and possession of a controlled substance. Before trial, he moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that his abandonment of the gun was coerced.
At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that while patrolling a high-crime area, he observed the defendant walking with his right arm stiffened against his side and a heavy, square-shaped object in his pocket that the officer believed was a firearm. When the defendant saw the marked police vehicle, he turned and walked in the opposite direction. The arresting officer pulled alongside him and asked whether he had a gun. The defendant twice said no even though the officer could see an object that looked like a gun and kept walking. As the officer opened his door to get out, the defendant ran. The police chased him, heard the sound of metal hitting the ground, and ultimately recovered a firearm and oxycodone pills.
The defense argued that the defendant had been forced to abandon the contraband by an illegal stop. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer’s questioning escalated the interaction into an unlawful investigatory detention under Commonwealth v. Hicks. It also found that the officer’s conduct coerced the defendant into discarding the gun, requiring suppression under Commonwealth v. Barnett. The prosecution appealed.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
The Superior Court disagreed. It held that the interaction remained a mere encounter up until the moment the defendant fled. The court emphasized several factors:
The interaction occurred in daylight on a public street.
Police did not activate lights or sirens.
No officer exited the car or blocked the defendant’s path until after he ran.
Asking whether someone is carrying a gun does not by itself create a detention.
Because the defendant remained free to leave and in fact chose to leave, the questioning did not constitute a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Once the defendant fled, however, the legal calculus changed. The court held that the arresting officer then had reasonable suspicion to pursue him based on the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances included:
The officer’s observation of a heavy, square object consistent with a firearm.
The high-crime nature of the area.
The defendant’s evasive behavior when he saw police.
His immediate, unprovoked flight when approached by police.
Under well-established Pennsylvania law, unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can supply reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors. Because the officers had reasonable suspicion at the moment of pursuit, the defendant’s abandonment of the gun was not coerced. The firearm was therefore admissible, and the court reversed the grant of the motion to suppress.
The Superior Court distinguished Barnett, noting that in that case police lacked reasonable suspicion when they attempted to stop the defendant. Here, the officer had already developed reasonable suspicion before formal pursuit began.
The Takeaway
Commonwealth v. Joyner reinforces several key principles for suppression litigation in Pennsylvania:
Police may question a person about a firearm without necessarily creating a detention.
Hicks limits firearm-based seizures but does not apply to consensual encounters.
Flight, when combined with other factors, can create reasonable suspicion.
Evidence discarded during a legally justified pursuit is admissible, not forced abandonment.
The case now returns to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings, including potential litigation on an unresolved Miranda issue.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
