COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES DENNIS GRIMES (2010)

I respectfully dissent from the decision to dismiss this appeal as having been improvidently granted because I believe this case affords the Court an opportunity to clearly state, and apply, the law regarding fleeing suspects in high-crime areas and regarding fleeing suspects who exactly match the description of an individual reportedly engaged in illegal activity.   I believe the Court has an obligation to grapple with these significant recurrent issues and to provide guidance to the bench and bar.

As established by the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing, Appellee was observed at a specific location in a high-crime drug trafficking area at a time when he was under surveillance by an Allegheny County detective.   The detective had received a phone call approximately one hour earlier from a confidential informant, who said that an individual exactly matching Appellee's appearance was offering crack cocaine for sale at that specific location.   Appellee did not engage in any suspicious behavior during the ten-minute period during which this detective, alone, observed him.   However, when another officer arrived shortly thereafter in a marked patrol car and pulled next to where Appellee was standing, Appellee removed his jacket, threw it and his cell phone onto the street, and fled in the opposite direction.   The officer and the detective gave chase, overtaking Appellee by using a Taser.   The police recovered Appellee's jacket from the street, searched it, and seized cocaine and an open pack of latex gloves from the right pocket.   After a hearing on Appellee's subsequent motion to suppress, the trial court denied the motion.   Appellee was convicted of possession of controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia.   On appeal to the Superior Court, Appellee's judgment of sentence was reversed on the basis that Appellee had been arrested without probable cause.¹

In Illinois v. Wardlow,

FOOTNOTES

FN1. If the police possess reasonable suspicion at the time they observe property being discarded by a suspect during the suspect's flight from them, then the police may properly recover that property.   See Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 673, 674-75 (Pa.1990) (affirming denial of a motion to suppress contraband discarded by defendant as he fled from the police).   Here, the Superior Court engaged in a misguided analysis of whether the police had probable cause to arrest Appellee after his flight and after recovery of the jacket..  FN1. If the police possess reasonable suspicion at the time they observe property being discarded by a suspect during the suspect's flight from them, then the police may properly recover that property.   See Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 673, 674-75 (Pa.1990) (affirming denial of a motion to suppress contraband discarded by defendant as he fled from the police).   Here, the Superior Court engaged in a misguided analysis of whether the police had probable cause to arrest Appellee after his flight and after recovery of the jacket.

MR. JUSTICE McCAFFERY