J-S17014-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.G., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1711 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-JV-0000555-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STABILE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Commonwealth”) appeals from 

the order entered on July 22, 2021, in which the juvenile court granted J.G.’s

motion to suppress physical evidence. We reverse the juvenile court’s 

suppression order and remand for further proceedings.

On May 12, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., Philadelphia police officers Mark Dial 

and Geovanie Castro-Baez were patrolling in the western part of the city when 

they observed a Honda Accord with an expired registration tag. See N.T. 

Suppression Hearing, 7/22/21, at 8-9, 18-19. The officers activated their 

patrol vehicle’s lights and sirens to initiate a traffic stop. Id. at 10. The driver 

of the Accord pulled over to the side of the road and parked. Id. As 

Officers Dial and Castro-Baez approached the vehicle, they observed three

passengers exit the vehicle. Id. One of the occupants, later identified as J.G., 
J-S17014-22

- 2 -

was holding a black jean jacket at his waist that appeared to contain an object. 

Id. 

While the officers “were attempting to gather everyone back into the 

vehicle,” J.G. fled. Id. at 10. After losing sight of J.G. for “maybe three 

seconds,” J.G. reappeared without the jacket and Officer Dial was able to 

detain him. Id. at 10-11. While taking J.G. into custody, Officer Castro-Baez 

retraced J.G.’s flight path and recovered the black jean jacket from a trashcan 

that J.G. had passed while attempting to flee. Id. at 23. Wrapped in the 

jacket was a Glock .19 mm handgun. Id. J.G. was arrested and charged with 

carrying a firearm without a license, possessing a firearm as a minor, and 

carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia. 

J.G. filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the firearm, contending that the

abandonment was coerced by the officers’ illegal pursuit. See Omnibus 

Motion for Pre-Adjudicatory Relief, 6/8/21, at unnumbered 1-3. Since J.G. 

was not the operator of the vehicle and officers did not see him engage in any 

criminal activity, J.G. contended that they had no valid reason to pursue him. 

On July 22, 2021, the suppression court held a hearing on J.G.’s motion. At 

the hearing, Officers Dial and Castro-Baez testified, identifying J.G. and 

describing the vehicle stop, chase, and recovery of J.G.’s firearm. See 

Suppression Hearing, 7/22/21, at 9, 19-20. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commonwealth argued that the 

firearm was lawfully recovered because the officers had probable cause to stop 
J-S17014-22

- 3 -

the vehicle due to the expired registration; therefore, they also had the right 

to control the vehicle occupants’ movements for the duration of the traffic 

stop. Id. at 25. Trial counsel did not contest J.G.’s connection to the firearm, 

but instead alleged that the evidence should be suppressed because the 

abandonment was coerced by an illegal pursuit. Id. at 31-32. The 

suppression court granted the motion, finding that the Commonwealth failed 

to prove that J.G. possessed the firearm. Id. at 39-40. Additionally, the court 

found that the officers did not reliably identify J.G. at the hearing, since neither 

had requested that J.G. remove his COVID-19 mask at the time of 

identification. Id. This Commonwealth appeal followed.1 The Commonwealth 

and the juvenile court both complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:

Did the suppression court err in granting suppression when the 

Commonwealth showed that officers recovered a gun that [J.G.] 

had abandoned in the middle of a police chase after he fled from 

a lawful car stop, and where the court erroneously applied a legal 

standard unrelated to that for the suppression of evidence, made 

a factual conclusion contrary to the undisputed record, and 

granted suppression on a ground [J.G.] did not raise?

Commonwealth’s brief at 7.

Our standard of review on such matters is well-settled:

____________________________________________

1 We properly assume appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal 

because the Commonwealth certified in its notice of appeal that the juvenile 

court’s order of July 22, 2021 terminated or substantially handicapped the 

prosecution. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d); see also Commonwealth v. Shearer, 

882 A.2d 462, 466 (Pa. 2005).
J-S17014-22

- 4 -

When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, this 

Court follows a clearly defined scope and standard of review. We 

consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses 

together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in 

the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. This 

Court must first determine whether the record supports the factual 

findings of the suppression court and then determine the 

reasonableness of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn 

from those findings. In appeals where there is no meaningful 

dispute of fact, as in the case sub judice, our duty is to determine 

whether the suppression court properly applied the law to the 

facts of the case.

Commonwealth v. Arthur, 62 A.3d 424, 427 (Pa.Super. 2013) (cleaned up). 

“This Court may reverse only when the legal conclusions drawn from those 

facts are erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Collins, 950 A.2d 1041, 1046 

(Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc). 

The Commonwealth contends that the suppression court applied an 

improper standard of review. See Commonwealth’s brief at 13-14. At the 

suppression hearing, the court stated that the Commonwealth bore the burden 

of proving that “more likely than not that a crime ha[d] been committed and 

that [J.G.] was involved.” N.T. Suppression Hearing, 7/22/21, at 35. Finding 

that the Commonwealth had not proven that J.G. possessed the firearm, the 

court granted suppression. Id. at 39-40. We agree with the Commonwealth’s 

position that the suppression court erred in applying the incorrect burden of 

proof.

It is well-established that, at a suppression hearing, the Commonwealth 

bears the burden of “establishing that the challenged evidence was not 

obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H). At the 
J-S17014-22

- 5 -

conclusion of the hearing, the judge “shall enter on the record a statement of 

findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the evidence was 

obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights, or in violation of these rules or 

any statute, and shall make an order granting or denying the relief sought.” 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I). Hence, during the suppression hearing, the 

Commonwealth was not tasked with proving that J.G. was engaged in criminal 

activity.

2

 Herein, the suppression court did not consider whether the firearm 

was obtained in violation of J.G.’s rights. Instead, the suppression court 

engaged in an improper assessment of the relative strength of the 

Commonwealth’s case. Nevertheless, the suppression court’s error does not 

thwart our review since we are not bound by the suppression court’s legal 

rulings. Collins, supra at 1046. Accordingly, we will proceed to consider 

whether the firearm was obtained in violation of J.G.’s rights.3

____________________________________________

2 To the extent that the suppression court’s preoccupation with establishing

J.G.’s connection to the firearm related to the court’s unstated concern that 

the police lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the pursuit, for the reasons 

we discuss infra, that concern is unwarranted. 

3 Additionally, the Commonwealth contended that the suppression court 

abused its discretion when it found that the Commonwealth had not 

adequately identified J.G. at the suppression hearing. See N.T. Suppression 

Hearing, 7/22/21, at 39-40. We find that this too amounted to an improper 

assessment of the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence. Notably, this 

argument was raised sua sponte by the suppression court, since J.G. never 

argued that he was misidentified or even that the firearm did not belong to

him. It is well-established that it is improper for a suppression court to litigate

an issue and rule upon it in a defendant’s favor where the defendant never 

raised the issue in any suppression motion, let alone with specificity and 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S17014-22

- 6 -

Generally, items abandoned by an individual under pursuit by law 

enforcement are admissible where the officers, before giving chase, had the 

necessary level of suspicion to effectuate a valid stop. See Commonwealth 

v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189, 1193 (Pa.Super. 2010). In contrast, items 

discarded because of police pursuit that was unsupported by reasonable 

suspicion or probable cause is considered a product of coercion and is not 

admissible against the individual. Id. Therefore, we discern that the outcome 

of this appeal turns upon a determination of whether the actions of Officers

Dial and Castro-Baez during the instant traffic stop were valid.

The United States Supreme Court “has long recognized the inherent 

dangers police officers face” when executing traffic stops. Commonwealth 

v. Dunham, 203 A.3d 272, 279 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citing to Pennsylvania v. 

Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110 (1977)). Accordingly, while justification for a 

traffic stop typically derives solely from the conduct of the vehicle operator, 

we have long held that police officers possess the authority to direct the 

movement of all vehicle occupants for the duration of a traffic stop. See 

Commonwealth v. Pratt, 930 A.2d 561, 563 (Pa.Super. 2007) (finding that 

to maintain control and ensure safety, officers can control “all movement in a 

____________________________________________

particularity. See Commonwealth v. Banks, 165 A.3d 976, 980 (Pa.Super. 

2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Whiting, 767 A.2d 1083, 1087-88 

(Pa.Super. 2001)). Thus, to the extent the juvenile court granted the 

suppression motion on the grounds that J.G. was not definitively identified, 

we find that the court abused its discretion. 
J-S17014-22

- 7 -

traffic encounter”). Thus, police pursuit of passengers who attempt to flee 

from an ongoing, lawful traffic stop is viewed as “merely a lawful continuation 

of that seizure.” Dunham, supra at 280 (“[i]t is simply beyond argument 

that a passenger may not flee from the scene [of a traffic stop], regardless of 

whether police issue verbal commands overtly directing a passenger’s 

movement.”). In this circumstance, no additional, particularized suspicion 

attributed solely to the fleeing passenger is required. Id.

Herein, it is uncontradicted that the officers possessed the requisite 

probable cause to initiate a lawful traffic stop for an expired registration tag

under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1301(a).

4 See Commonwealth v. Harris, 176 A.3d 

1009, 1019 (Pa.Super. 2017) (finding that in circumstances where the 

suspected Motor Vehicle Code violation is such that it requires no additional 

investigation, the officer must possess probable cause before initiating the 

traffic stop); see also N.T. Suppression Hearing, 7/22/21, at 9 (Officer Dial 

testifying that, on May 12, 2021, he initiated a traffic stop of a 2004 Honda 

Accord after he observed that the driver was operating the vehicle on a public 

roadway and the registration had expired in June of 2020).

Indeed, rather than challenging the legality of the traffic stop, J.G. 

contends that the firearm’s abandonment was coerced because the officers 

____________________________________________

4 Section 1301(a) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code provides that “[n]o 

person shall drive or move . . . upon any highway any vehicle which is not 

registered in this Commonwealth unless the vehicle is exempt from 

registration.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1301(a).
J-S17014-22

- 8 -

did not possess additional, individualized suspicion that J.G. himself had 

engaged in any criminal activity. See Appellee’s brief at 7. Relying on 

Dunham, supra, the Commonwealth disputes J.G.’s claim that the officers 

needed additional justification before following J.G. See Commonwealth’s 

brief at 12. Specifically, the Commonwealth alleges that the probable cause 

needed to initiate the traffic stop was sufficient to support the pursuit of J.G. 

Id. We agree with the Commonwealth that Dunham is directly on point and 

necessitates reversal of the suppression order. 

In Dunham, officers initiated a traffic stop upon observing a violation 

of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. Prior to the vehicle coming to a 

complete stop and before any verbal commands could be given by the officers, 

one of the three passengers, Dunham, fled from the vehicle on foot. During 

the ensuing foot pursuit, Dunham discarded a handgun and a bag of marijuana 

that were later recovered by the police. Dunham was arrested and charged 

with possessing the firearm and marijuana. Thereafter, Dunham filed a 

motion to suppress, contending that officers had coerced his abandonment of 

the contraband when they unlawfully pursued him. Dunham did not dispute 

the lawfulness of the traffic stop itself, but rather argued that additional, 

particularized suspicion was needed before officers could pursue him, since he 

was a passenger and had not engaged in any criminal activity.

The suppression court agreed with Dunham and granted the motion. 

The Commonwealth appealed and we reversed, finding that “a lawful traffic 
J-S17014-22

- 9 -

stop constitute[d] a seizure of all occupants of the vehicle for the duration of 

the stop, with no additional, particularized suspicion required.” Id. at 280. 

Since the police conducted the lawful traffic stop using their emergency 

equipment, a reasonable person in Dunham’s position would have known that 

he should remain with the vehicle, even absent verbal commands from the 

officers to do so. Id. at 280. Therefore, Dunham was seized lawfully, prior 

to his flight from the vehicle, and police pursuit was “merely a lawful 

continuation of that seizure.” Id. Thus, the recovery of the abandoned 

evidence did not violate Dunham’s rights and should not have been 

suppressed. Id. 

Here, as in Dunham, the traffic stop was still in progress when J.G. fled. 

Notably, J.G. did not contest the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The record 

reflects that the officers conducted the traffic stop using their emergency 

equipment and approached the vehicle in full uniform, attempting “to gather 

everyone back in the vehicle” when J.G. fled. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 

7/22/21, at 10; see also Appellee’s brief at 2 (conceding that he fled while 

the officers were attempting to gather everyone back into the vehicle). 

Therefore, consistent with Dunham, J.G. was seized lawfully prior to his flight 

and police pursuit was merely a lawful continuation of that initial seizure. 

Furthermore, J.G.’s attempts to distinguish his case from Dunham are 

unpersuasive. See Appellee’s brief at 5. J.G. contends that because the 

officers did not see him engage in any criminal activity, Dunham should not 
J-S17014-22

- 10 -

apply. Id. However, this assertion simply ignores the Dunham Court’s 

precise holding that a valid stop is sufficient to seize the vehicle’s occupants 

and that police can pursue a fleeing occupant as a continuation of that seizure. 

Dunham, supra at 280. Like in this case, the officers in Dunham also only 

discovered that Dunham possessed and abandoned narcotics and a firearm 

after they had apprehended him. Accordingly, these particular facts are 

virtually identical and do not constitute grounds for distinguishment. Instead, 

consistent with our holding in Dunham, we find that the officers did not coerce 

J.G.’s abandonment of the firearm and it should not have been suppressed.

Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 

Judge Stabile joins this Memorandum.

Judge Lazarus concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/20/2022