J. S69025/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

v. :

:

SIDNEY LAMONT WATERS :

:

APPELLANT : No. 152 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 23, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001250-2015

 

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 19, 2016

Appellant, Sidney Lamont Waters, appeals from the December 23, 

2015 Judgment of Sentence of two concurrent terms of two to five years’ 

incarceration imposed after the court found him guilty of one count each of 

Firearms not to be Carried without a License and Possession of a Firearm 

with Altered Manufacturer’s Number.1, 2 Appellant alleges specifically that 

the trial court erred when it denied his pre-trial suppression motion. After 

careful review, we affirm.

 

* Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2, respectively.

2 The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with Possession of Marijuana, 

35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(3), but did not present any evidence at trial in 

support of this charge. Accordingly, the trial court found Appellant not guilty 

of Possession of Marijuana.
J. S69025/16

- 2 -

The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and 

complete narrative of the facts and procedural history in this case, which we 

adopt for purposes of our disposition. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/7/16, at 1-3, 5-9. 

Appellant presents the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant’s] motion to 

suppress, where police did not have a reasonable suspicion 

to stop and frisk [Appellant] initially, and therefore, any 

observations of the police after that or any evidence taken 

from [Appellant] should have been suppressed as the fruit 

of the illegal stop and frisk?

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Our standard of review in an appeal from an order denying a Motion to 

Suppress is as follows: 

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of 

a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the 

suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record 

and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are 

correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the 

suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the 

Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as 

remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record 

as a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are 

supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and 

may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (citation 

omitted).

A police officer may conduct an investigative detention, otherwise 

known as a Terry3stop, of an individual if he or she has reasonable 

 

3 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968).
J. S69025/16

- 3 -

suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 866 

A.2d 1143, 1146 (Pa. Super. 2005). That suspicion must be based on 

“specific, articulable facts” known to the officer at the time and “reasonable 

inferences drawn from those facts in light of the officer’s experience.” 

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. 1997). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned Opinion of the trial court we conclude 

that the issue Appellant has raised on appeal lacks merit. The trial court 

Opinion properly disposes of the question presented. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-

5, 9-12 (concluding: (1) the officer reasonably suspected, based upon 

specific and articulable facts and the reasonable inferences drawn from those 

facts and their experience, that the three men he observed running in the 

street shortly before a dispatch for shots fired, and who were subsequently 

stopped by police were the same men involved in the shooting; (2) based on 

the temporal and spatial proximity to the area where shots were reportedly 

fired, the officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect that Appellant was 

armed; and (3) the search performed was limited to what was necessary to 

ensure officer safety, and the firearm was readily apparent). Accordingly, 

we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinion.

The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court’s March 

17, 2016 Opinion to all future filings.
J. S69025/16

- 4 -

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/19/2016
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2; and 35 P.S. § 780-l l 3(a)(31 ), respectively. 

United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. 

and seizure of a firearm violated his rights as guaranteed by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the 

and seizure of Appellant. See Omnibus Pretrial Motion. As such, Appellant claimed the search 

not have a proper warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion to effectuate the stop, search, 

On July 8, 2015, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, alleging the officers did 

Firearm with Altered Manufacturer's Number (F2), and Possession of Marijuana (M).1 Id. 

custody and charged with Firearms Not To be Carried without a License (F3), Possession of a 

with obliterated manufacturers number and suspected marijuana. Id. Appellant was taken into 

down search of all three individuals, at which time Appellant was found to be carrying a firearm 

the description. Id. Because they believed the men could be armed, officers performed a patProbable Cause. According to the Affidavit, Appellant and two other men were found matching 

and gave a description of three males wearing dark hoodies seen in the area. See Affidavit of 

A venue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, after Lancaster County dispatch reported a call of shots fired 

stopped Sidney Lamont Waters ("Appellant") and two other men in the vicinity of 644 Columbia 

On March 5, 2015, shortly after 9:50 p.m., officers of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police 

......., 

= n 

CT' • rri 

. ::::, 

::.::, -... -"' 

--i 0 

-rt 

:--. n 

0 

c 

'-0 zo 

N ---i 

.::- U> 

BY TOTARO, J. 

PA R.A.P. 1925 OPINION 

SIDNEY LAMONT WATERS 

vs. 

rl> 

:z 

152 MDA 2016 ~ 

(/) 

---i 

CP-36-CR-0001250-2015 f;J 

n 

0 

c: 

:z 

---i 

:< 

jg 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL 

Circulated 09/23/2016 10:02 AM
2 

3 On December 23, 2015, the trial court imposed a standard range sentence of not less than two 

years nor more than five years in the State Correctional Institution on each count, concurrent to each 

other. (Notes of Transcript, Sentencing at 25) (hereinafter "N.T.S."); Sentencing Guideline Worksheet. 

Appellant was ordered to pay a fine of $100, submit a DNA sample and pay the $250 cost, he was not 

made eligible for the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) Program, and he received credit for 

time served. (N.T.S. at 25-26). Appellant was also made eligible for boot camp, any programs dealing 

with drug and alcohol addiction, as well as any vocational or educational programs. Id. at 26. 

2 Counsel stipulated that the firearm found on Appellant was a functional firearm capable of 

expelling a projectile under the action of an explosive; Appellant did not have a license to carry a 

concealed weapon on the date of the offense and because he was only 19 years old on that date he was 

not eligible for such a license; Appellant gave a voluntary statement to police detectives following his 

arrest admitting to possessing the firearm; the manufacture's number on the firearm had been obliterated; 

and Officer Sinnott charged Appellant with the three aforementioned counts. (N .T. at 100-04). 

Investigation Report was ordered, and sentence was deferred pending its completion.3 Id. at 106. 

of marijuana, the Court found Appellant not guilty of that count. Id. at 104-06. A Presentence 

104, 106. However, because no evidence was presented with respect to the charge of possession 

on the firearms charges, and thus the Court found Appellant guilty on those counts.2 Id. at 100- 

hearing. Id. Counsel also entered into a number of stipulations which established factual guilt 

at 100). At that time, both counsel agreed to incorporate the entire record from the suppression 

Following the suppression hearing, the parties proceeded to a stipulated bench trial. (N.T. 

firearm was immediately apparent. Id at 94. Therefore, Appellant's motion was denied. Id. 

that which was necessary to discover any weapons. Id. Further, the nature of the object as a 

potentially armed and dangerous, justifying a protective search of Appellant limited in nature to 

94) (hereinafter "N.T."). Moreover, police had reasonable suspicion to believe Appellant was 

temporary stop of Appellant in relation to the dispatch of shots fired. (Notes of Transcript at 93- 

specific and articulable facts, that there was reasonable suspicion for police to conduct a 

Suppress Evidence. At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the Court found, based on 

On September 28, 2015, a suppression hearing was held on Appellant's Motion to 

, . .._ 
3 

A.3d 433, 438 (Pa. Super. 2012). 

Where the record supports the factual findings of the trial court, the appellate court is 

bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. 

Commonwealth v. Angel, 946 A.2d 115, 117 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Russo, 

934 A.2d 1199, 1203 (Pa. 2007)). While the appellate court is not bound by the lower court's 

conclusions oflaw, "it is within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the 

credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony." Angel, 946 A.2d at 117 

(quoting Russo, 934 A.2d at 1203); Commonwealth v. Dutrieville, 932 A.2d 240, 242 (Pa. Super. 

2007); Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706. 719 (Pa. 2014). 

When a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to 

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. 

Commonwealth v. Bowmaster, 101 A.3d 789, 792 (Pa. Super. 2014). When the Commonwealth 

prevails on a motion to suppress evidence before the trial court, an appellate court may consider 

only the Commonwealth's evidence and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains 

uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 62 

On January 22, 2016, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court of 

Pennsylvania. On February 16, 2016, Appellant timely filed a Statement of Errors Complained 

of on Appeal ("Statement"), claiming the suppression court erred in denying his Motion to 

Suppress Evidence because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Appellant. 

See Statement. As such, any evidence taken from Appellant should have been suppressed "as the 

fruit of the illegal stop and frisk." Id 

LEGAL STANDARD 

_ ..... 
4 

of the totality of the circumstances, viewed though the eyes of a trained officer rather than an 

ordinary citizen. Zhahir, 751 A.2d at 1156; In re NL., 739 A.2d 564, 567 (Pa. Super. 1999). 

Factors to consider include "the specificity of the description of the suspect in conjunction with 

how well the suspect fits the given description, the proximity of the crime to the sighting of the 

suspect, the time and place of the confrontation, and the nature of the offense reported to have 

been committed." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 678 A.2d 798, 801 (Pa. Super. 1996). 

Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop an individual requires an evaluation 

v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. 1997) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968)). "The 

fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the 

moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken 

was appropriate." Zhahir, 751 A.2d at 1156 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

"A police officer need not personally observe the suspicious conduct leading to the 

reasonable belief needed for a Terry stop and may rely upon information received over the police 

radio to justify the initial stop." Commonwealth v. Arch, 654 A.2d 1141, 1144 (Pa. Super. 1995). 

An officer may also rely on information provided by third parties under certain circumstances. 

Commonwealth v. Korenkiewicz, 743 A.2d at 958, 963 (Pa. Super. 1999). 

A police officer may conduct an investigative detention of an individual if he has 

reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 866 A.2d 1143, 

1147 (Pa. Super. 2005)(citing Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 751 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. 2000)). That 

suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts known to the officer at the time and 

reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of the officer's experience. Commonwealth 

-. - 
5 

Once an officer has lawfully detained an individual, the "officer may conduct a limited, 

pat-down search for weapons when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is 

armed and dangerous." Jackson, 698 A.2d at 573. Because the justification of this search is for 

the protection of the officer or others nearby, "such a protective search must be strictly limited to 

that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or 

others nearby." Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 744 A.2d 1261, 1264-65 (Pa. 2000) (quoting 

Terry, 392 U.S. at 26). The nature of the suspected criminal activity is a proper consideration in 

the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a search was appropriate. Zhahir, 751 

A.2d at 1157. It is appropriate for an officer to search an individual when the individual is 

stopped for the investigation of gunshots in the nearby area. Bryant, 866 A.2d at 114 7. 

DISCUSSION 

On March 5, 2015, at approximately 9:51 p.m., Officer Ben Bradley ("Bradley") of the 

Lancaster City Police Department C'LCPD") was patrolling in the area of East Filbert Street 

approaching Lafayette Street when he observed three men running together north on East Filbert 

Street. (N.T. at 6, 8-11). Fresh snow was on the ground and the temperature was 18 degrees. Id. 

at 9. Although it was dark, there were street lights in the area and he could tell they were males. 

Id at 18~ 19. Because hardly anyone was out that night and the ground was icy, Bradley took 

mental note of the three males. Id. at 22. Bradley observed the men were around five foot five 

inches tall, wearing dark clothing that included jackets or hooded sweatshirts. Id. at 10, 17, 18. 

Shortly thereafter, Bradley saw a fourth man look up the street in the direction where the 

first three males had just traveled. (N.T. at 12). When Bradley saw the fourth man throw a 

cardboard pizza box on the ground, Bradley stopped the man for littering. Id. at 12, 20, 22. 

-- 
6 

Approximately 15 seconds after stopping the fourth man, Lancaster County dispatch reported a 

call of shots fired at 25 New Dorwart Street, and gave the description of three individuals who 

were wearing hoodies. Id. at 12-13. According to Bradley, 25 New Dorwart is at the comer of 

Lafayette Street, and the dispatch for shots fired occurred approximately "a minute or less" after 

Bradley saw the three individuals running. Id. at 11-13. At that point, Bradley dispatched 

information about his observation of the three men he just saw running down the street. Id. at 13. 

After clearing the fourth man, Bradley joined the search and was called to assist officers 

who had stopped three men. (N.T. at 13). Upon arrival, Bradley stated the three males who were 

stopped looked like the same three individuals he saw running around the comer on Filbert 

Street, based on their clothing, similar height and build. Id. at 13-14, 23. Furthermore, only a 

few minutes had passed between the time he observed the three men running and the time the 

three individuals were stopped. Id. at 14. Because of the weather, pedestrian traffic was "pretty 

low that night," and from the time he saw the three individuals until he responded to where they 

had been detained Bradley did not see any other groups of individuals matching the description 

that was given out over the radio. Id. at 14-15. 

Bradley testified he has been employed as a police officer with LCPD since October 

2007. (N.T. at 6). He further testified that the area where he saw three men running and where 

the three men were later stopped is within his jurisdiction. Id. at 7. Bradley stated he is familiar 

with the area and officers are frequently dispatched there for criminal activity such as robberies, 

aggravated assaults, and weapons calls. Id. at 8. More specifically, during his career he has seen 

"at least two homicides, three shootings and countless shots fired calls" in the area. Id. 

-. 
7 

Id. at 35. Fisher also testified the area where the shots were fired is a high crime area, based on 

continual problems such as fights, shootings, and weapons calls. Id. at 27, 42. 

Officer Timothy Sinnott ("Sinnott") of the LCPD testified he was working on the evening 

of March 5, 2015, when he heard county dispatchers relay information about a shooting that was 

reported by Maria Montes. (N.T. at 45-46, 61·62). Thereafter, Sinnott responded to the scene 

where three men were being held, arriving within three to five minutes after the call came out for 

"because of the call that was received and because of the investigation into the shots fired .... " 

Officer Michael Fisher ("Fisher") of the LCPD was on duty on March 5, 2015, riding in a 

patrol vehicle with Officer Bogner ("Bogner"). (N.T. at 25-28). At approximately 9:50 p.m., 

Fisher and Bogner were dispatched to respond to a call of shots fired in the first block of New 

Dorwart Street. Id. at 27-29. The dispatch gave an address and a description of three men in 

hooded sweatshirts. Id. at 29. Thereafter, Fisher and Bogner heard Bradley's radio transmission 

describing his observation of three men wearing darker clothing with hooded sweatshirts on 

Filbert Street. Id. at 29-30. The officers then heard Sergeant McCrady ("McCrady") call out on 

the radio that he located three men in hooded sweatshirts at 644 Columbia A venue in Lancaster 

City. Id. at 31. Fisher and Bogner responded to McCrady' s location within seconds, and when 

they arrived Fisher saw three men wearing hoodies. Id at 31-34. At no time did Fisher recall 

seeing any other people, "let alone anybody in groups." Id. at 33-34. 

As officers approached the three men, Fisher asked them to "hold up" so officers could 

talk to them. (N.T. at 34). The men complied. Id. at 35. Within a period ofless than four 

minutes, when a sufficient number of officers arrived at the scene, a pat-down search was 

conducted of the three men. Id. at 35-37. According to Fisher, the search was appropriate 
8 

were being held after hearing a dispatch for shots fired and transmissions from Bradley and 

McCrady detailing their observations. (N.T. at 68-71). Prior to his arrival, while looking for the 

suspects himself, Alexander did not see any other groups of people who matched the description 

put out over the radio. Id at 71. Upon arrival, within approximately five minutes of the initial 

call for shots fired, Alexander observed three males wearing dark clothing. Id. at 71-72. 

Because Appellant was very loud and belligerent, Alexander assisted Sinnott in detaining him. 

At the suppression hearing. Alexander stated he responded to the area where three men 

shots fired. Id. at 45-50. Prior to arriving at that location, while driving around looking for the 

suspects, Sinnott did not see anyone else out that evening. Id. at 48. According to Sinnott, the 

distance from where the shots were reportedly fired to where Appellant and the other two men 

were stopped was within two to three blocks of each other. Id. at 65-66. 

Upon arrival, Sinnott approached Appellant. (N.T. at 49). While Fisher and Bogner 

conducted pat-down searches of their respective suspects, Sinnott conducted a pat-down search 

of Appellant. Id. at 51. According to Sinnott, he did so due to the nature of the call that had 

been given out and for officer safety. Id. at 52. 

Sinnott conducted the pat-down by "running over the outside of [Appellant's] clothing, 

feeling for anything that [he could] recognize." (N.T. at 52-53). While placing his hand over 

Appellant's right pant leg, Sinnott immediately recognized a hard object in the shape of a firearm 

inside Appellant's right pant pocket. Id. at 53. Sinnott alerted other officers of his finding, at 

which time Appellant was put on the ground and placed in custody. Id. Officer Steven 

Alexander ("Alexander") then retrieved a firearm from underneath Appellant's outer pants, in the 

pocket of his gym shorts. Id. at 55-56. 
9 

two common articles of clothing, the Court found the stop and frisk were justified when 

Superior Court noted there was a meager physical description of an alleged perpetrator wearing 

that description two and one half blocks from the scene of the robbery. Id. at 800. Although the 

A.2d at 799. Five minutes after receiving the report a police officer saw an individual matching 

the only description of the suspect was a male wearing a black baseball hat and black jacket. 678 

In Commonwealth v. Jackson, supra, there was a radio report of an armed robbery, and 

frisk for his safety due to recent gunfire in the area. Id. 

conduct a Terry stop. Id The court also found the officer was justified in conducting a pat-down 

Id. Therefore, the court concluded the officer possessed sufficient reasonable suspicion to 

Viewing the totality of the circumstances through the lense of [the officer's] 

experience, the combination of the aforementioned facts indicates that [the appellee] 

was engaged in 'unusual and suspicious conduct.' Given the facts before him at the 

time he heard the gunshots and saw [the appellee], [the officer] could have concluded 

reasonably that [the appellee] was a perpetrator, victim, or eyewitness of a possible 

shooting. 

stated as follows: 

at 1147. On appeal, the Superior Court, noting the encounter happened in a high crime area, 

officer heard the shots originate, while no other persons were seen running at the time. 866 A.2d 

gunshots and saw the appellant and his companions running around the corner from where the 

Appellant in the present case. In Commonwealth v. Bryant, supra, an officer heard the firing of 

Appellate court cases support the finding of reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk 

Appellant was wearing underneath his jeans. Id. at 73- 75. 

Alexander retrieved a black semiautomatic handgun from the pocket of Appellant's shorts that 

Id. at 73. After Sinnott informed Alexander that he felt a firearm on Appellant's person, 
10 

considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that the appellant fit the given 

description, appellant was spatially and temporally proximate to the crime scene when stopped, 

the crime was a serious felony, and it occurred late in the evening in a dangerous area. Id. at 801. 

Additionally, in the case of In re Ii.M; 727 A.2d 556 (Pa. 1999), the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court found the stop and frisk of four black males was justified where an identified 

victim reported an armed robbery involving four or five black males, the officer observed four 

black males walking very quickly one-half block from the crime scene about one minute after the 

call, they were the only males the officer observed in the vicinity of the crime, and the group 

abruptly began walking in the opposite direction upon seeing the police. Id. at 558. In justifying 

the stop, the Court recognized that an officer who lacks probable cause to arrest "need not 

'simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape.:" Id. at 557. The 

Court further stated the officer "would have been derelict in his duties had he not detained the 

group which was very possibly armed and retreating after having committed a violent armed 

felony mere moments earlier." Id. at 558. 

In the case sub Judice, Officer Bradley was patrolling in the area of East Filbert Street 

approaching Lafayette Street in Lancaster City when he observed three men running together 

north on East Filbert Street. This was in a high crime area, where there are continual problems 

such as fights, shootings, and weapons calls. Because hardly anyone was out that night and the 

ground was icy, Bradley took mental note of the three males and what they were wearing. 

Within one minute of seeing these individuals, Lancaster County dispatch reported a call of shots 

fired occurring at 25 New Dorwart Street, and gave the description of three individuals who were 

wearing hoodies. The call and information were provided by an identified individual. 

~- 
11 

suspect that the three individuals he had observed running in the street shortly before a dispatch 

for shots fired and who were subsequently stopped by police were the same individuals involved 

in the shooting. Additionally, based on the suspected criminal activity and close proximity to the 

area where the shots were reportedly fired, the officers had reasonable suspicion to suspect that 

Appellant and his two colleagues were armed and dangerous. As such, the pat-down frisk 

conducted of Appellant was appropriate for officer safety. Moreover, the manner in which the 

articulable facts, and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of his experience, to 

According to Bradley, the three men were observed by him running in close proximity to 

the area where the shots were reportedly fired, less than five minutes afer the report of gunshots. 

The men were also wearing clothing that matched the description given by the caller. Based on 

the totality of these circumstances, Bradley believed the three individuals he saw were involved 

in the shooting. Therefore, Bradley dispatched information about his observations of the three 

men to other officers. 

A few minutes later, Bradley was called to assist officers who had stopped three men that 

were wearing dark clothing. The officers made the stop based on information contained in the 

police dispatch and information provided by Bradley. The distance from where the shots were 

reportedly fired to where Appellant and the other two men were stopped was within two to three 

blocks of each other. Upon arrival, Bradley stated the three males who were stopped looked like 

the same three individuals he saw running, based on their clothing, similar height and build. 

Moreover, officers did not see any other groups of individuals matching the description given 

over the radio between the time of dispatch and the stop of Appellant and his two colleagues. 

Based on this information, the trial court properly found that Bradley had specific and 
12 

Jacquelyn E. Pfursich 

Clerk of Courts 

I certify this document to be filed 

in the Lancaster County Office of 

the Clerk of the Courts. 

•. , 

Travis S. Anderson, Esquire, Assistant District Attorney 

Diana C. Kelleher, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender 

Copies: 

ATTEST: 

Date: DONALD R. TOT ARO, JUDGE -=M~ar=-c=h~l 7'-'-,...e::2=0..e..cl 6"'--- 

BY THE COURT: 

suspicion to stop and search Appellant. Therefore, this appeal should be denied. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court did not err when it found the officers had reasonable 

CONCLUSION 

search itself was reasonable. 

be used to harm the officers, and the discovery of a firearm was readily apparent. Thus, the 

search was performed was limited to what was necessary for the discovery of weapons that might