PA Superior Court: Unprovoked Flight in High Crime Area Still Justifies Stop of Suspect

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Barnes, holding that unprovoked flight in a high crime area justifies the detention of the person fleeing even if the police do not make any other observations of criminal activity. This is true even if the police observe no other factors that could give rise to reasonable suspicion - unprovoked flight and a high crime area, with nothing more, is enough for the police to stop someone and potentially frisk them.

The Facts of Barnes

In Barnes, the police were traveling in a police car at an intersection in a high crime area. The police department considered the area to be so bad that they routinely had a police car simply park at that corner at all times in order to try to prevent crime. The officers were driving in the area when they observed a group of about five or six people on the northeast corner of 8th and Clearfield. The group began to scatter as the police approached, and each member began walking in a different direction.

The defendant began walking southbound towards the patrol car with at least one other male. One of the officers got out of the car and turned his flash light on. The defendant then ran. The officers chased him, and the defendant eventually tripped and fell. The officers caught him, saw that he had a fanny pack, and they started to frisk the fanny pack. They asked if he had a gun in it, and he said yes. They found a gun in the fanny pack. The defendant then said he was on probation and did not have a license to carry.

The Motion to Suppress

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that police stopped him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause because they observed nothing more than flight in a high crime area. The court reasoned that because the police had no specific information about the defendant, did not see any criminal activity, and were not responding to any kind of radio or 911 call, they had no reason to stop the defendant. Therefore, the court suppressed the gun, and the Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

The Superior Court promptly reversed the suppression order. The court noted that the case law has long held that unprovoked flight from police in a high crime area justifies an investigative detention of the suspect. Therefore, the police were allowed to chase the defendant and try to figure out why he ran away from them for seemingly no reason. Mere presence in a high crime area alone does not justify a stop, but when that presence is coupled with unprovoked flight, the police may investigate. There is no requirement that the police see specific criminal activity or receive a 911 call directing them to stop the defendant.

As the defendant had fled for no reason and had a bag which could have contained a gun, the police were then justified in asking if the bag had a gun in it. The court ruled that the police had not actually arrested the defendant before finding the gun - they had just tried to stop him to figure out what was going on. Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the order granting the motion to suppress and remanded the case for trial. The defendant will now face trial on the firearms charges.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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.

Zak Goldstein 5/17/23 Zak Goldstein 5/17/23

Attorney Clemens Wins Motion to Suppress Firearm

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas C. Clemens, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Thomas C. Clemens, Esquire, recently won a motion to suppress in a firearms case. In Commonwealth v. Y.P., the Philadelphia Police arrested Y.P. after finding a firearm secreted in his car. Prosecutors filed VUFA (violation of the uniform firearms act) charges such as carrying a concealed firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106), felon in possession of a firearm (VUFA § 6105), and carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA § 6108). Accordingly, Y.P. was facing up to 32 years in jail if a judge or jury convicted him of the charges.

The police officers claimed that they stopped Y.P. in North Philadelphia after he blew through a stop sign in his car. The arresting officer claimed that during the stop, he could see Y.P. begin to move around in the car in a nervous manner as if he was trying to place something away from his body. The officer removed Y.P. from the car and placed him in the patrol car. The officer then “frisked” the passenger compartment of the car for weapons and found a gun. The police arrested Y.P., and prosecutors charged him with the aforementioned weapons offenses.

Y.P. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens promptly filed a motion to suppress the gun. The Philadelphia Court of Common pleas held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing, Attorney Clemens used the officer’s body camera footage to show that the window tint on the vehicle was actually too dark for the officer to have seen anything going on in the car during the stop. The officer even noted in the video that he could not see into the car, meaning he could not have seen Y.P. moving around or acting nervously. Therefore, Attorney Clemens argued that the officer had not actually seen any nervousness or furtive movements, making the “frisk” of the vehicle really a search for evidence based on a mere hunch rather than a legitimate frisk of the vehicle for officer safety. The police had not obtained a search warrant, so they would have been allowed to search the car only if exigent circumstances such as a need to ensure officer safety existed.

The trial judge agreed that the police could not actually see into the car and granted the motion. This left the prosecution with no choice but to dismiss the charges. Y.P. will be eligible for a full expungement.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

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, VUFA, 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.

Zak Goldstein 5/4/23 Zak Goldstein 5/4/23

Attorney Clemens’s Client Acquitted of VUFA (Gun) Charges

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney recently won a full acquittal for his client in a case involving firearms charges. In Commonwealth v. A. C.-O., prosecutors charged the client with various offenses under the uniform firearms act (VUFA offenses) for allegedly possessing a firearm in a vehicle without a license to carry. Fortunately, A.C.-O. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens took the case to trial.

In the case, police claimed that the client and multiple other men were in a car in the Frankford section of Philadelphia when the police stopped the car on suspicion of a traffic violation. The client was in the backseat of the car along with three other men, and the officers testified that they saw a gun underneath one of the other occupant’s feet. The police instructed everyone to get out of the car, and as the client was getting out, he took his backpack off and placed it on the floor of the car. The police immediately grabbed the backpack, searched it, and found a gun inside it. Unsurprisingly, they arrested the client and charged him with VUFA offenses for illegal possession of the gun in the backpack.

A.C.-O. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens took the case to trial. During trial, Attorney Clemens cross-examined the police officers on numerous inconsistencies in the various police reports regarding the locations of the various males in the car, as well as the chaotic scene at the time of the arrest. Despite the police officers’ unwavering testimony that A. C.-O. was the individual with the gun in his backpack, Attorney Clemens raised reasonable doubt as to whether A.C.-O. had ever even touched the backpack, and A. C.-O. was eventually acquitted of all charges. Given the full acquittal, A.C.-O. has the right to an expungement of the arrest record, and he will not have to serve any time in prison as a result of the arrest.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 4/24/23 Zak Goldstein 4/24/23

Motion to Suppress Assault Rifle Granted

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the suppression of an assault rifle. In the case of Commonwealth v. WM, police charged WM with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person as a felony of the first degree. Prosecutors alleged that when police went to execute a search warrant at WM’s house, someone threw a bag out the window as the police entered the home. Police subsequently secured the home and recovered the bag from the lower roof area. Inside the bag, the police found an assault rifle.

The officers then questioned the occupants of the home. Two of them had no criminal history, and one one of them even had a license to carry a firearm. WM, however, was on state parole for a serious offense, so police immediately suspected him of possessing the long gun and throwing it out the window. WM eventually confessed to throwing it outside on video, so the police arrested him. Prosecutors charged him with a violation of the uniform firearms act (VUFA § 6105) for possessing a firearm while having a criminal record which makes gun possession illegal. WM was facing up to 20 years in prison and additional time in custody for a parole violation.

Fortunately, WM retained Attorney Goldstein for his case. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the search warrant and determined that the search warrant for the home was defective because police acted on stale information in applying for the warrant. As the warrant was defective, the subsequent entry into the home was illegal, and but for the illegal entry, no one would have thrown the gun outside. Therefore, Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress the gun and confession, arguing that the four corners of the warrant did not contain legitimate probable cause to search the house.

In summary, the police were investigating a shooting and carjacking which took place on May 16, 2022. They conducted an extensive investigation which led them to believe that a certain juvenile had committed the shooting. The issue, however, was whether police had conducted enough investigation to conclude that the juvenile or evidence relating to the shooting would be found at WM’s home. The evidence that they had that the juvenile lived there was very limited. About a year prior to the execution of the warrant, the police encountered the juvenile outside of the house, and he stated that he lived there. They checked arrest records and found his mother’s name. They also found that his brother had reported living there about two months prior to the execution of the search warrant. Thus, the information they had was that the juvenile reported living there over a year ago and that his brother may have lived there two months ago. Accordingly, Attorney Goldstein argued that while it appeared that they had probable cause to search for the juvenile, they did not have current probable cause to believe that he lived at the address in question. There was also no reason to believe that evidence of the crime would be found about two months later as someone would be likely to get rid of the proceeds of a crime within two months.

In general, information must not be stale in order for it to amount to probable cause. The age of the information supporting a warrant application is a factor in determining probable cause. When the information is too old, he warrant is stale, and probable cause may not exist. Age is not the only factor, however. Instead, the age of the information must be compared against the nature of the crime and the type of the evidence for which the police are looking. For example, probable cause to search for electronic evidence may exist for much longer than probable cause to search for drugs. This is because computers often retain even deleted evidence for years, whereas drugs can be sold or disposed of within hours or days.

In this case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that police may have had probable cause to believe that the juvenile lived there a year ago, but without doing any background checks shortly before obtaining the search warrant, they had no reason to believe that he still lived there. They also had no reason to believe that even if he did live there, he would still be storing evidence of the crime at the house about two months after the crime took place. The Common Pleas judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The Commonwealth was therefore forced to withdraw the charges, and WM will be released.