# Commonwealth v. Hicks

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 17, 1966 · 209 Pa. Super. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766569

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Hicks, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 17, 1966
- **Citations:** 209 Pa. Super. 1; 223 A.2d 873; 1966 Pa. Super. LEXIS 677
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Ervin, Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766569

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I agree with the majority that a police officer may stop a person on the streets for brief questioning, if he “reasonably suspects” that that person has committed a felony. In addition, the officer may “pat down” the person stopped, if he believes himself in danger from a concealed deadly weapon.
However, the potential for abuse in the procedures approved today suggests that we should be especially circumspect in reviewing these cases. I cannot agree that the test of reasonable suspicion has been satisfied here.
When the defendant was stopped, he was not acting furtively or stealthily. He was simply walking on the street, some five blocks from the scene of the crime. He was carrying no packages and there were no bulges under his clothing.
Officer Closkey knew only that a burglary had been committed in the area by a Negro with a mustache, wearing a brown coat. The defendant did not have a mustache. He was wearing a light-colored coat. In short, the only point of correspondence in the two descriptions is that both men were Negroes.
The majority concedes that the line between illegal police action and detention on reasonable suspicion is difficult to define. However, reasonable suspicion cannot mean that the police may stop and search any person in the vicinity where a crime has been committed, merely because he happens to be there. The record in this case shows nothing more.
I would reverse and grant a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766569. Public record. Not legal advice.