J-S44018-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant 

v. 

RICO GREEN 

 Appellee No. 1878 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order November 14, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0003610-2013 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. FILED AUGUST 08, 2014 

 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting Rico Green’s motion to 

suppress all evidence obtained after Green was stopped by police on the 

streets of Pittsburgh. After careful review, we reverse. 

 On September 13, 2012, Officers Mark Goob, Edward Fallert and 

Michael Hoffman were on plain-clothes duty in an unmarked car driving 

toward the Northview Heights neighborhood of Pittsburgh due to recent 

complaints of drug activity and gun violence. While driving, Officer Fallert 

observed Green walking on the sidewalk toward their vehicle. Officer Fallert 

testified that Green was wearing a white t-shirt and sweatpants with an 

elastic waistband, and stated that he thought Green might be carrying a 

gun. Officer Goob then noticed a bulge in the front section of Green’s 
J-S44018-14 

- 2 - 

waistband, and Officer Fallert slowed the vehicle, eventually coming to a 

stop. Green stopped walking, and Officers Goob and Hoffman jumped out of 

the vehicle. 

 Officer Goob started walking toward Green, displaying his badge, and 

stated, “Hey, Pittsburgh Police, can you come here for a second.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 11/13/14, at 2. Green stopped and looked around for a moment 

from his stationary position. Officer Goob moved closer to Green, and was 

able to see the bulge more clearly. Officer Goob then asked Green if he was 

carrying a gun, but Green did not respond. Officer Goob advised Green that 

he was going to pat him down. Officer Goob then touched the bulge on 

Green’s waistband, and “his tactile sense [told] him that it [was] the ‘handle 

of a gun.’” Id. Officer Hoffman then handcuffed Green, and Officer Goob 

lifted Green’s t-shirt to reveal a Smith and Wesson firearm loaded with nine 

bullets.

On July 3, 2013, Green filed a timely pre-trial motion to suppress all 

evidence. On July 24, 2013, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the 

motion, and on November 14, 2013, the court granted the motion. The 

Commonwealth filed a timely Notice of Appeal on November 26, 2013. On 

December 4, 2013, the court ordered the Commonwealth to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 

and the Commonwealth did so on December 24, 2013. 

On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue:
J-S44018-14 

- 3 - 

Whether the suppression court erred in concluding that the 

police did not have reasonable suspicion to approach [Green], 

who displayed a bulge in his waistband that the officers believed 

was a firearm, to inquire whether he possessed a firearm, but 

then patted him down when [Green] did not answer the officer’s 

question regarding the presence of the gun? 

Brief of Appellant, at 4. 

 When reviewing a trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress, our 

standard of review is as follows: 

[W]e are required to determine whether the record supports the 

suppression court’s factual findings and whether the legal 

conclusions drawn by the suppression court from those findings 

are accurate. In conducting our review, we may only examine 

the evidence introduced by appellee along with any evidence 

introduced by the Commonwealth which remains uncontradicted. 

Our scope of review over the suppression court’s factual findings 

is limited in that if these findings are supported by the record we 

are bound by them. Our scope of review over the suppression 

court’s legal conclusions, however, is plenary. 

Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 36 A.3d 1104, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2012). 

Before reviewing the issue presented by the Commonwealth, this case 

warrants an inquiry into the level of police-citizen interaction involved. 

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes three levels of police-citizen 

encounters: 

The first [level of interaction] is the “mere encounter” (or 

request for information) which need not be supported by any 

level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or 

respond. The second, an “investigative detention” must be 

supported by reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a

stop and period of detention, but does not involve such coercive 

conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest. 

Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by 

probable cause. 
J-S44018-14 

- 4 - 

Commonwealth v. Bryant, 866 A.2d 1143, 1146 (Pa. Super. 2005). The 

trial court held, and all parties agree, that Green’s encounter with the police 

began as a mere encounter, when Officer Goob stated, “Hey, Pittsburgh 

Police, can you come here for a second,” and then rose to the level of an 

investigative detention when Officer Goob informed Green that he was going 

to pat him down. Trial Court Opinion, 11/13/14, at 5; Brief of Appellant, at 

12; Brief of Appellee, at 8, 18, 25. Based on the undisputed fact that Green 

was subject to an investigative detention, the Commonwealth was required 

to prove that the officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the 

time they patted Green down. Id. at 1146. 

In evaluating whether an officer possessed reasonable suspicion to 

conduct a search, the trial court must: 

[E]xamin[e] the totality of the circumstances to determine 

whether there was a particularized and objective basis for 

suspecting the individual stopped of criminal activity. Thus, to 

establish grounds for reasonable suspicion, the officer whose 

impressions formed the basis for the stop must articulate specific 

facts which, in conjunction with reasonable inference derived 

from those facts, led him reasonably to conclude, in light of 

experience, that criminal activity was afoot. 

Commonwealth v. Cottman, 764 A.2d 595, 598-99 (Pa. Super. 2000). 

Further, “when assessing the reasonableness of an officer’s decision to frisk 

a suspect during an investigatory detention, an appellate court does not 

consider the officer’s unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but rather the 

specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in 
J-S44018-14 

- 5 - 

light of his experience.” Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759, 

772 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quotations omitted). 

Here, the trial court based its conclusion that Officers Goob and Fallert 

lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the search on the belief that the 

officers failed to prove the requisite training and experience to determine 

that: 1) the encounter took place in a high crime area; or 2) that Green 

possessed an illegal firearm based on the bulge in his pants. We disagree. 

At trial, Officers Goob and Fallert both testified that they received Top Gun 

training1

, and Officer Fallert testified that he also received training from the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in characteristics of armed 

individuals, how they conceal their weapons and their mannerisms. N.T. 

Suppression Hearing, 7/24/13, at 23, 38-39. Both Officers Goob and Fallert 

also testified that they have made thousands of gun arrests throughout their 

respective twelve and twenty years of experience on the police force. Id. 

Further, Officers Goob and Fallert testified that they had experience in 

the particular neighborhood of Northview Heights, given their assignment to 

a team charged with combating the high levels of drug and gun activity 

present there. Id. at 23. The evidence of record in the instant case is 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The Top Gun training program is a drug enforcement training program 

designed for the investigator and prosecutor that highlights various stages of 

a typical drug investigation from the time the initial information is received 

through the resulting search warrants. Pennsylvania Narcotic Officers’ 

Association, available at www.pnoa.org/topgun.html (last visited on 

7/17/2014). 
J-S44018-14 

- 6 - 

almost identical to that which was present in Stevenson, supra, and which 

this Court deemed sufficient to establish requisite training and experience. 

As such, the record does not support the trial court’s determination that 

Officers Goob and Fallert lacked the necessary training and experience to 

identify gun-related criminal activity. Gutierrez, supra. 

Accordingly, we must turn to whether the officers had reasonable 

suspicion to conduct the search, based on their training and experience. At 

trial, Officer Fallert testified that while driving the unmarked police vehicle, 

he observed Green walking on the sidewalk and saw “a bulge consistent with 

when [he] tuck[s] [his] firearm into [his] waistband.” N.T. Suppression 

Hearing, 7/24/13, at 40. He stated that the way Green was carrying the gun 

is the “most common way people carry illegal firearms.” Id. Further, he 

testified that Green did not appear to be of legal age to carry a firearm. Id. 

At trial, Officer Goob testified that after Officer Fallert alerted him that he 

believed Green was carrying a gun, he exited the vehicle, and once he was 

within a few feet of Green, he “could see the object in his waistband more 

clearly, and it resembled a handgun . . . so [he] asked him if he was 

armed.” Id. At that point, Officer Goob advised Green that he was going to 

pat him down. As such, this is the point at which Officer Goob was required 

to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Bryant, supra. 

Based on this testimony, Officers Goob and Fallert both offered 

“specific and articulable facts” to support their “objective and particularized” 

suspicion that Green was in possession of a firearm. Cottman, supra. 
J-S44018-14 

- 7 - 

Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting Green’s motion to suppress, as 

the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Officers Goob and 

Fallert lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. Gutierrez, 

supra. 

Order reversed. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with the 

dictates of this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/8/2014 
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM
Circulated 07/22/2014 01:33 PM