Com. v. Alston, S. ( 2015 )

J-A16001-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
STEVEN ALSTON,
Appellee No. 1469 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered May 1, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015307-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 17, 2015
I join the majority memorandum in full. I write separately, however,
to explain why I believe police lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the
traffic stop to search for weapons absent Appellee’s admission.
In this case, police officers pointed to no specific and articulable
reason that they believed Appellee possessed a firearm other than the fact
that he had a revoked license to carry firearms (“LTCF”). This, however, is
insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion. The fact that Appellee’s LTCF was
revoked only means he was not legally permitted to have a firearm in the
vehicle (or on the streets of Philadelphia). Police did not know why
Appellee’s LTCF was revoked. It could have been revoked for a myriad of
reasons. For example, an individual who is a habitual drunkard must have
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court
his or her LTCF revoked. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6109(e)(i)(vii), 6109(i).
Thus, all police knew was that Appellee was prohibited from possessing a
firearm.
If the mere revocation of a license to carry a firearm created
reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle, the proverbial flood gates to fishing
expeditions would be open. There are many reasons an individual cannot
legally possess a firearm in a vehicle. For example, an individual under 21
years old may not lawfully possess a firearm in a vehicle. See 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 6106(a), 6109(b). Police obviously lack reasonable suspicion to search a
vehicle to ascertain whether a 20-year-old driver possesses a firearm. There
is no difference between Appellee and the 20-year-old pulled over for
speeding. In both situations, all the police know is that the individual is
prohibited from possessing a firearm. That, without more, does not provide
reasonable suspicion to search for a firearm.
With this further explanation, I concur.
-2-