Commonwealth v. T.B.

Philadelphia police officers patrolling near 1800 W. Westmoreland Streets reported that they observed T.B. walking with what appeared to be a firearm in his front hoodie pocket. They claimed that they exited their patrol car to engage T.B. in a mere encounter (which does not require them to possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity) when T.B. fled from them on foot. Police claimed that upon this flight they had probable cause to pursue him and that during their attempt to apprehend him they recovered a firearm discarded by T.B. that had an obliterated serial number. The defense filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming that the police did not engage in a “mere encounter”, and that T.B. had been illegally stopped before he fled and that therefore the firearm was recovered in violation of T.B.’s constitutional rights. At the motion, the defense cross examined the officer about another case he was involved in (see Commonwealth v. O.J.) where Mr. Link demonstrated to a judge that he had lied about seeing a bulge in a person’s jacket by bringing in the firearm and the jacket into court and showing the judge that no bulge could have existed. Additionally, the officer was cross-examined regarding police directives governing the use of body cameras to show that the officer violated policy by activating his body camera late and therefore not capturing the initial moments of the officers’ approach to T.B. At the conclusion of the motion, the Judge found that T.B. was indeed unlawfully stopped and ordered the firearm to be suppressed from evidence.