J-S65001-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TAIK ROLLING

Appellant No. 1557 EDA 2008

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 29, 2008

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-CR-0002154-2007

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 11, 2014

Appellant, Taik Rolling, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered January 29, 2008, by the Honorable Susan I. Schulman, Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Rolling argues that the trial court

erred when it denied his motion to suppress physical evidence. No relief is 

due. 

At approximately 2 a.m. on February 8, 2007, Philadelphia Police 

Officer Siris Polard was on routine patrol at the 3000 block of Wharton Street 

when he observed a burgundy Nissan driving without its headlights 

activated. See N.T., Suppression Hearing, 8/16/07 at 4-5. He initiated a 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S65001-14

- 2 -

traffic stop and called for backup. See id. at 6. Officer Polard identified 

Rolling as the driver of the vehicle. See id. at 5. 

When Officer George Ackerman arrived at the scene, the officers 

approached the vehicle and Officer Polard asked Rolling for his paperwork. 

See id. at 6. At the time, Rolling was dressed in an unzipped brown hoody, 

under which he was wearing an untucked dress shirt. See id. at 13; 19. As 

Rolling reached towards the glove box, Rolling’s shirt tightened and Officer 

Ackerman observed a bulge in the left waistband area of Rolling’s shirt. See 

id. at 15. Concerned that Rolling possessed a firearm, Officer Ackerman 

asked Rolling, repeatedly, to lift his shirt. See id. When Rolling complied, 

Officer Ackerman observed what appeared to be the handle of a firearm. 

See id. at 16; 19. Officer Ackerman immediately demanded Rolling raise 

his arms to the roof of the car, and then pulled up Rolling’s shirt to reveal 

the handle of a .45 caliber handgun sticking out of Rolling’s waistband. See 

id. at 16; 20. 

Rolling was arrested and charged with violations of the Uniform 

Firearms Act. Prior to trial, Rolling filed a motion to suppress physical 

evidence. Following a hearing, the suppression court denied Rolling’s 

motion. The trial court convicted Rolling of carrying a firearm without a 
J-S65001-14

- 3 -

license and carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia,1and 

sentenced Rolling to three years’ probation. This timely appeal followed. 

Rolling challenges the court’s denial of his suppression motion. Our 

standard of review is well-settled.

[W]e are limited to determining whether the factual findings are 

supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions 

drawn from those facts are correct. We may consider the 

evidence of the witnesses offered by the prosecution, as verdict 

winner, and only so much of the defense evidence that remains 

uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a 

whole. 

Commonwealth v. McAliley, 919 A.2d 272, 275-276 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(citation omitted). “Moreover, if the evidence supports the factual findings 

of the suppression court, this Court will reverse only if there is an error in 

the legal conclusions drawn from those findings.” Commonwealth v. 

Powell, 994 A.2d 1096, 1101 (Pa. Super. 2010).

The record supports the suppression court’s factual findings. As such, 

we proceed to determine whether the suppression court’s legal conclusion, 

that the seizure in this case was lawful, is correct. Preliminarily, we note 

that there is no dispute that Rolling was the subject of a lawful investigatory 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106; 6108. 
J-S65001-14

- 4 -

detention. As such, the officers needed only reasonable suspicion to conduct 

a pat-down.2 

During [an] investigatory stop, the officer can pat-down 

the driver when the officer believes, based on specific and 

articulable facts, that the individual is armed and 

dangerous. Such pat-downs, which are permissible 

without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable 

suspicion less than probable cause, must always be 

strictly limited to that which is necessary for the 

discovery of weapons that might present a danger to the 

officer or those nearby. When assessing the validity of a 

pat-down, we examine the totality of the circumstances 

... giving due consideration to the reasonable inferences 

that the officer can draw from the facts in light of his 

experience, while disregarding any unparticularized 

suspicion or hunch.

Commonwealth v. Parker, 957 A.2d 311, 315 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal 

citations, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). 

Rolling essentially argues that because the shirts he was wearing 

under the sweatshirt were untucked, his “untucked shirts would have been 

too loose [] for a bulge to appear.” Appellant’s Brief at 12. Faced with 

conflicting testimony, it was the duty of the suppression court to pass on the 

credibility of the witnesses. Clearly, in denying Rolling’s suppression motion, 

the court credited the testimony of Officers Polard and Ackerman that they 

observed a bulge in Rolling’s waistband, which they feared to be a firearm. 

See N.T., Suppression Hearing, 8/16/07 at 32-33. Based upon the officers’ 

____________________________________________

2 Of course, here, the officers did not conduct a per se pat-down of Rollings. 

However, as they lifted Rolling’s shirt under suspicion that he possessed a 

firearm, we find the situation to be analogous. 
J-S65001-14

- 5 -

observation and the concern for their safety, we find the request that Rolling 

lift his shirt to have been eminently reasonable and supported by reasonable 

suspicion. Hence, we conclude that the lower court properly denied Rolling’s 

suppression motion. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/11/2014