Commonwealth v. Cunningham

• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: MURRAY, J.
• Docket Number: 2560 EDA 2024,J-A27024-25
• Decision Date: 16 December 2025
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 2560 EDA 2024, J-A27024-25 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec 16, 2025)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. MAURICE CUNNINGHAM

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. MAURICE CUNNINGHAM

No. 2560 EDA 2024

No. J-A27024-25

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 16, 2025

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered September 17, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003605-2023.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., MURRAY, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY, J.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth) appeals from the suppression court's order granting the omnibus pretrial motion (suppression motion) filed by the defendant Maurice Cunningham (Cunningham), and suppressing evidence seized from his person following an investigative detention.^[1] After careful review, we reverse the order of the suppression court and remand for further proceedings.

The suppression court summarized the testimony presented at the suppression hearing:

Philadelphia Police Officer Brendan McCauley [(Officer McCauley)] was the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing. Officer McCauley, who had 14 years of experience as an officer, conducted approximately 150 firearms arrests in the past three years.

In the past year[,] 5 to 10 of [Officer McCauley's] arrests involved individuals under [the age of] 21. Officer McCauley has been assigned to the 25^th police district for the past 12 years. Officer McCauley has personal knowledge of the district as a very dangerous area.

He described the Kensington area of Philadelphia, where the incident took place, as [] very violent and in the top five areas for shootings every year. On April 4, 2023[,] as the sun was setting[,] Officer McCauley[,] with his partner[,] Office[r] Lane[,^[2] were patrolling in a marked vehicle in the area of the 200 block of [W]est Allegheny Avenue.

Officer McCauley observed [Cunningham] walking on the sidewalk. The officer testified that he saw a bulge on the right side of [] Cunningham. And that he looked to be aged 18 to 20.

Officer McCauley made a U-turn[, and] pulled to the side of the highway. [] Officer Lane exited the patrol vehicle. Officer Lane approached [] Cunningham on foot. Body-worn camera video admitted into evidence showed Officer Lane say to [] Cunningham, yo guy. That's not a gun in your pocket is it[?]

[] Cunningham removed an item from his left pocket, showed it to Officer Lane[,] and said that there was nothing in his pocket.^[3]After this initial interaction, Officer Lane said to [] Cunningham that he was good to go[,] explaining that [Cunningham showed him a charging device,] [a]nd it was shaped like a gun. [] Cunningham turned and walked away.

Officer McCauley yelled out the window from within his [vehicle's] right side to communicate to his partner that he had seen the bulge on [] Cunningham's right side. Officer McCauley also yelled to [] Cunningham[,] you're young as shit.

Officer Lane continued to follow [] Cunningham on foot. Officer McCauley drove to the end of the block and stopped his vehicle on the sidewalk in front of [] Cunningham.

After the patrol car pulled up in front of him, [a]nd as Officer Lane was walking towards him from behind, [] Cunningham ran.

[] Cunningham was apprehended and a firearm was recovered. At the suppression hearing Officer McCauley testified that he believed [] Cunningham to be between the age of 18 and 20[,] because he had a young face and appearance.

Neither officer asked [] Cunningham how old he was nor did they ask for his ID….

N.T., 9/17/24, at 2-4 (footnote added).

On April 5, 2023, the Commonwealth charged Appellant, by criminal complaint, with carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia, and evading arrest or detention on foot.^[4]

On September 12, 2023, Appellant filed his suppression motion seeking, inter alia, suppression of statements and evidence seized while in police custody. Suppression Motion, 9/12/23, ¶¶ 7-13. Appellant averred that the seizures were "the result of an illegal arrest-an arrest without legally efficacious warrant for probable cause[.]" Id. ¶ 6.

The trial court conducted a suppression hearing on September 17, 2024. After the hearing, the suppression court concluded that the officers had engaged Cunningham in a mere encounter up until the time that "Officer Lane told [Cunningham] that he was good to go." N.T., 9/17/24, at 5. The suppression court further concluded that at the time the police vehicle blocked Cunningham, the encounter escalated into an investigative detention. Id. at 6. The suppression court opined that

Officer McCauley's testimony that [] Cunningham had a young face and appearance does not identify specific and articulable facts to justify his conclusion that [] Cunningham was aged 18 to 20, and therefore, was unlawfully carrying a firearm.

Id. at 6. For this reason, the suppression court concluded that the investigative detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Id. Consequently, the suppression court granted Cunningham's suppression motion. Suppression Court Order, 9/17/24.

The Commonwealth timely appealed and filed a court-ordered concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Although the suppression court filed an opinion, the court's opinion disagreed with its prior ruling, and recommended that we reverse the grant of Cunningham's suppression motion. Suppression Court Opinion, 3/4/25, at 7-8. The suppression court now concludes that under the totality of the circumstances, Cunningham's "furtive movements, the blading of his body, his youthful appearance, and the observation of a bulge prompted officers to reasonably suspect illegal firearm possession." Id.

On appeal, the Commonwealth identifies the following issue for our review:

Did the lower court improperly grant [Cunningham's] motion to suppress-as that court now concedes it did in its Rule 1925(a) opinion-where police possessed reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention after an officer observed a bulge in [Cunningham's] pocket[;] [Cunningham] appeared too young to be lawfully armed[;] [Cunningham] behaved evasively prior to any interaction with the officers[;] and [Cunningham] engaged in unprovoked flight?

Commonwealth's Brief at 3.

The Commonwealth argues that the interaction between officers and Cunningham "escalated beyond a mere encounter once the officers chased the fleeing [Cunningham]." Id. at 10. The Commonwealth directs our attention to evidence that, after telling Cunningham he could leave, Officer Lane asked a follow-up question regarding a bulge on his right side. Id. Soon thereafter, Officer McCauley observed Cunningham crouching near a car, then fleeing. Id. at 11. According to the Commonwealth, the following factors established reasonable suspicion of criminal activity:

1) Officer McCauley's observation of a bulge consistent with a gun in [Cunningham's] right pocket; 2) [Cunningham's] youthful appearance, suggesting he was too young to legally possess a gun; 3) [Cunningham's] furtive movements - including reversing direction after seeing the officers, blading his right side away from Officer Lane, and crouching down near a car; and 4) his unprovoked flight.

Id. at 12. The Commonwealth asserts each factor is relevant in assessing reasonable suspicion, and collectively, gave rise to the existence of reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative detention. Id.

In a late-filed brief, Cunningham agrees with the suppression court that when Officer McCauley drove the marked police cruiser onto the sidewalk, the mere encounter escalated into an investigative detention. Appellee's Brief at 8. Cunningham argues that "[a] subjective youth estimate, unverified, coupled with an ambiguous 'bulge,' does not meet the standard" necessary to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Id. at 9. According to Cunningham, even if "blading" had occurred, the Commonwealth failed to establish reasonable suspicion. Id. Appellant further points out that his flight took place after his seizure, and cannot be considered in determining whether Officer McCauley possessed reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention. Id. at 10.

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. Barr, 266 A.3d 25, 39 (Pa. 2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further,

[w]e must always keep in mind that the suppression court, as the finder of fact, has the exclusive ability to pass on the credibility of witnesses. See Commonwealth v. Fudge, 213 A.3d 321, 326 (Pa. Super. 2019). Therefore, we will not disturb a suppression court's credibility determinations absent a clear and manifest error. Id. at 326-27.

Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2022).

"At a suppression hearing, the Commonwealth has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence was properly obtained." Commonwealth v Heidelberg, 267 A.3d 492, 498 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H)....