stating that the appellant “overlook[ed] the mandate that reasonable suspicion must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances” where his brief was “devoted to citing cases which hold that certain factors . . ., standing alone, are insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the appellant “overlook[ed] the mandate that reasonable suspicion must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances” where his brief was “devoted to citing cases which hold that certain factors . . ., standing alone, are insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion”
- finding reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant when he and “companions matched the number of suspects . . . , they matched the race of the suspects; they were the only individuals observed in the vicinity of the robbery; they were seen a mere one-half block away within approximately one minute of the crime; and they acted evasively when they saw the police vehicle.” (emphasis added)
- finding that appellant waived state constitutional claim because he failed to raise it in his 1925(b) Statement
- police officer received information that four or five black males committed a robbery at gunpoint, and one minute later, officer saw four black males, including defendant, walking quickly one-half block from the crime scene, and did not observe any other males in the vicinity, and group abruptly changed direction upon seeing the police vehicle; officer's investigatory detention of the defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion, where, inter alia, investigatory detention was close in time and location to the occurrence and scene of the crime
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent. Under the jurisprudential standards of this Commonwealth, no person, under any circumstance, can be detained and deprived of any right, constitutional or otherwise, simply as a result of race, ethnicity, gender or any other discriminatory classification. The individual rights constitutionally guaranteed to each and every citizen of this Commonwealth preclude the use of such discriminatory classifications as a pretext for intrusion by the state, no matter how laudatory the goals of law enforcement officials and irrespective of *561 the seriousness of the crime under investigation.
In this ease, the police stopped, detained and searched Appellant solely on the basis that he was among a group of black males who happened to be in the vicinity of a recently completed robbery and changed their direction upon encountering the police. Accordingly, I must conclude that this unwarranted police action constituted a violation of Appellant’s right under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.