PA Superior Court holds both that “hey fellas” is not a stop and that probation officers may assist police with catching fleeing suspect.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Stoney, holding that the police did not illegally stop the defendant by saying “hey fellas” as they pulled up to him and that there was nothing illegal about a probation officer helping the police capture the defendant once he fled from them.
The Facts of the Case
The incident began when a Harrisburg police officer and several county probation officers were patrolling a high-crime area near North 6th and Seneca Streets. The police officer observed two men, later identified as the defendant and another individual, standing on a corner. The officer testified that the second man appeared to be concealing a firearm with a drum magazine and that the defendant made a “security tap” on his waistband consistent with carrying a gun.
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
When the officers circled the block and approached on foot, the officer called out, “Hey fellas.” Both men looked back and immediately fled in opposite directions. A probation officer pursued the defendant and saw him remove a gun from his waistband and throw it onto a roof. The officers recovered the firearm and arrested him.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that he was unlawfully seized when the officer said “hey fellas,” that his flight was provoked by a show of authority, and that the probation officers exceeded their statutory authority because the defendant was not under county supervision. He was, however, on federal supervised release. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion and that the probation officers acted lawfully in assisting the police. The defendant appealed, arguing both that the police stopped him without reasonable suspicion and that the probation officers did not have the authority to stop him at the direction of the police.
The Superior Court’s Decision
The Superior Court affirmed on appeal. The Court held that a police officer saying “hey fellas” did not amount to a seizure under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Because the phrase was casual and non-coercive, it would not communicate to a reasonable person that they were not free to leave. At that point, the encounter was merely a consensual interaction, not an investigative detention requiring reasonable suspicion.
The Court held that the seizure occurred only once the officers began to pursue the defendant and his companion after they fled. By that time, the officers already had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances: a high-crime location, the officer’s observation of what appeared to be a firearm, the defendant’s “security check,” and unprovoked flight, which the Court has long held can justify a Terry stop.
The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that county probation officers acted outside their statutory authority. Relying on Commonwealth v. Gibson (2025) and Commonwealth v. Mathis (2017), the panel held that probation officers may assist police in the field as part of their public-safety duties. The “stalking horse” doctrine did not apply because the police already had reasonable suspicion before the probation officers helped with the physical apprehension. The probation officers did not initiate the investigation or stop. Instead, they merely helped the police officers.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the firearm was not discarded as part of a “forced abandonment,” that the detention was lawful, and that the trial court properly denied the motion.
The Takeaway
The decision reinforces that a brief, informal greeting such as “hey fellas” or “what’s up” does not constitute a seizure under Pennsylvania law. A stop begins only when police restrain a person’s movement or communicate that they are not free to walk away. “Stop” is a stop, but other, more casual greetings may not be. And once someone flees for no real reason, police often have at least reasonable suspicion to chase them. Further, although Pennsylvania recognizes forced abandonment and still allows for the suppression of a gun that someone discards while fleeing if the flight was triggered by an illegal stop, federal law does not. Thus, even if the state courts had suppressed the gun, the defendant could have been prosecuted in federal court.
This case also illustrates that courts continue to treat unprovoked flight in a high-crime area as a major factor supporting reasonable suspicion even when the behavior itself is ambiguous. It further confirms that probation officers working with police may lawfully assist in arrests when officers already have reasonable suspicion. The defense was unable to cite any cases which held that the probation officers could not assist the police once the police themselves had reasonable suspicion. The probation officers may not have been able to conduct the investigation alone, but because they were acting at the direction of the police, the Superior Court affirmed.
Facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police?
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense
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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
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.
