The opinion
HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
“Every commercial transaction between citizens on a street corner does not give rise to probable cause for an arrest.” Commonwealth v. Malson, 434 Pa.Super. 155, 161 , 642 A.2d 520, 529 (1994) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lawson, 454 Pa. 23, 28-29 , 309 A.2d 391, 394 (1973)). In the instant case, Officer Meissler observed appellant engage in one transaction with another individual. While he observed the exchange of U.S. currency, he admits that he was unable to identify the object exchanged. 1 Officer Meissler had no information that appellant was a known drug dealer, nor was he responding to any citizen complaints of drug activity at that location on September 8, 1992. Moreover, when approached by Officer Meissler, appellant made no attempt to flee and behaved in a compliant manner. Viewing all of the facts and circumstances in their totality, I find that there was not a reasonable basis to support a finding of probable cause to arrest. See Commonwealth v. Greber, 478 Pa. 63 , 385 A.2d 1313 (1978) (probable cause to arrest lacking where the officer had no prior information about drug activity, only observed one isolated transaction and could not identify either object exchanged); Commonwealth v. Malson, 434 Pa.Super. at 164 , 642 A.2d at 525 (“no citizen may *570 be arrested merely for passing an unidentified item to another citizen on a public street”); Commonwealth v. Agnew, 411 Pa.Super. 63, 74 , 600 A.2d 1265 (1991) (no probable cause to arrest where officers unable to identify object exchanged).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I must respectfully dissent.
. On cross examination Officer Meissler testified that on the day in question he could not identify the objects exchanged from his vantage point. N.T., May 24, 1993 at 14-17.