Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Stabile](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10804400/com-v-taylor-j/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Taylor, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 226 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Stabile

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Victor P. Stabile](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8247/victor-p-stabile/)

J-S39006-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
JAMARI TAYLOR : No. 226 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered December 20, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003946-2024

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 5, 2026

The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on December 20, 2024, granting

Appellee’s motion to suppress. The lower court agrees with the

Commonwealth that the motion was erroneously granted. Accordingly, the

Commonwealth is asking us to vacate the order and remand for further

proceedings. We agree.1

The suppression court summarized the relevant factual and procedural

background as follows.

On May 15, 2024 at or around 11:00 P.M., Appellee was walking
northbound on the westside of the 3700 block of Frankford Avenue
in the city and county of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Police Officer
Pedro Martin and Philadelphia Police Officer Thrasher were driving
southbound in a police vehicle and observed Appellee walking.
After observing Appellee, the police officers reversed their vehicle

---

1 We also note that Appellee did not file an appellate brief.
J-S39006-25

towards Appellee. Officer Martin rolled down his window, without
activating his lights or sirens, and asked Appellee if he had a
weapon on his person. [Appellee] shook his head affirmatively in
response to Officer Martin’s question. Officer Martin asked to see
the weapon and [Appellee] approached the police vehicle. Once
[Appellee] was a couple feet away from the window of the police
vehicle, he lifted his hooded sweatshirt and exposed the front of
his waistband to reveal a firearm. Officer Martin the asked
[Appellee] if he had a permit to carry and [Appellee] answered
“No.” Officer Martin exited his vehicle and placed [Appellee] under
arrest. [Appellee] was subsequently charged with possession of
firearm with manufacturer number altered, firearms not to be
carried without license and carrying firearms in public in
Philadelphia.

On October 23, 2024, Appellee filed a motion to suppress physical
evidence and requested a hearing on the motion. [At the hearing,
c]ounsel for Appellee [argued] that the [officers] who made the
arrest lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop.
Counsel for Appellee alleged that the firearm recovered from
[Appellee] was the fruit of an illegal search and therefore should
be suppressed[.]

....

Following testimony, [the suppression court] then heard argument
from both parties. [The suppression court] found that police
officers did not find any criminal activity afoot and therefore did
not have reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop of Appellee.
Accordingly, [the suppression court] granted Appellee’s motion to
suppress physical evidence.

On January 10, 2025, [the Commonwealth] filed a timely
interlocutory appeal to [the lower court]. [In its concise
statement, the Commonwealth raised the following issue: “Did the
trial court err by suppressing evidence based on the conclusion
that police allegedly ‘stopped’ him without a lawful basis simply
by approaching him on the street and asking whether he had a
gun?]

Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/25, at 1-2 (citations and footnotes omitted).

-2-
J-S39006-25

Upon consideration of the Commonwealth’s concise statement, the

suppression court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion acknowledging that “the

decision to grant the motion to suppress was erroneous pursuant to

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2011) and

Commonwealth v. Jones, 266 A.3d 1090 (Pa. Super. 2021). As such, the

trial court requests the Order be vacated and the case remanded for further

proceedings. Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/25, at 2.

We review this challenge under the following standard of review:

We review trial court suppression orders to determine whether the
factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal
conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. We are bound by
the suppression court's factual findings so long as they are
supported by the record. In reviewing an appeal by the
Commonwealth of a suppression order, we may consider only the
evidence from the defendant's witnesses along with the
Commonwealth's evidence which remains uncontroverted. Our
scope of review of suppression court factual findings is limited to
the suppression hearing record. We, however, are not bound by a
suppression court’s conclusions of law; rather, when reviewing
questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope
of review is plenary.

Commonwealth v. Young, 287 A.3d 907, 915-16 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation

omitted).

Here, there is no dispute as to the mechanics or the circumstances

surrounding the encounter. The only question here is whether Appellee was

seized when the police first engaged in a conversation with him. In light of

the facts of the case, and the applicable law, we too agree that Appellee was

not seized by the police during the initial stage of their interaction. See, e.g.,

-3-
J-S39006-25

Coleman, 19 A.3d at 116 (holding that officer was engaged in a mere

encounter when he approached the defendant and asked him if he had a gun);

Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1195, 1199 (Pa. 2019) (an interaction

passes from a mere encounter to a seizure only “when the officer, by means

of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty

of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.”). Indeed, the

record merely shows that the officer asked Appellee a question, and nothing

in the circumstances surrounding that interaction amounted to a seizure of

Appellee. As such, the suppression court erred in granting Appellee’s motion

to suppress.

Order granting suppression reversed. Case remanded for further

proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 3/5/2026

-4-