Key Takeaway: The PA Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed that the Commonwealth must meet the burden of proving an area is “high crime” when relying on this designation to support an investigatory detention, or “Terry stop”. The ruling stated that the Suppression Court has discretion to determine whether the evidence supports this designation, rather than adopting a strict test.
Case details: Commonwealth v. Anthony Lewis, No. 37 EAP 2024 (2025)
On July 31, 2021, two police officers on routine patrol in Philadelphia observed a group of four or five men they believed to be gambling in violation of the Philadelphia City Code. The officers pulled over in their patrol car without lights or sirens to investigate. When the Officer opened his car door, Anthony Lewis, carrying a black leather bag, made eye contact with the officer and fled. The Officer pursued Lewis, who ducked into an alleyway and discarded his bag over a fence. Later, the bag was recovered and found to contain a loaded firearm, which DNA evidence later linked to Lewis.
At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth’s evidence included testimony by the Officer that he had been assigned to that sector for nearly three years, “very frequently” observed people gambling on that block, and believed the block was a “known gambling area” and “known narcotics area.”
The issue on appeal
Lewis moved to suppress the firearm on the grounds that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for a seizure. The trial court credited the officers’ testimony, found that the area was high-crime, and concluded that Lewis’s unprovoked flight in that context supported reasonable suspicion. The motion was denied.
The Superior Court affirmed the lower court ruling. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted discretionary review to determine (1) how much evidence is required to designate an area a “high-crime area,” and (2) whether the evidence supports reasonable suspicion in this case.
Courts have routinely allowed police to rely on the fact that the stop occurred in a “high-crime area” and often relied on the officer’s designation as the sole criterion for determining that an area was high-crime. It was not required for the commonwealth to provide evidence to support this designation beyond an officer’s discretion.
In September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided how lower courts should evaluate claims that a police stop occurred in a “high-crime area” when used to defend a search or seizure. This designation is often used to justify investigatory detentions, more commonly called “Terry stops”, under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. When police make a lawful Terry stop, they only need to articulate “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard of proof than probable cause, which is required to justify searches and seizures.
Understanding the Court’s Decision
In Commonwealth v. Lewis, the Court scrutinized the police’s designation that an area is a “high-crime” area. The decision clarified that this is one factor, but cannot be the only factor, to determine whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop, pursue, or detain someone. It also instructed the Suppression Courts to consider the totality of evidence presented to support this claim and ensure the Commonwealth has met its burden with credible proof.
Judges should consider some combination of the following:
1.) The nexus between the type of crime most prevalent or common in the area and the type of crime suspected in the instant case.
2.) Limited geographic boundaries of the “area” or “neighborhood” being evaluated.
3.) Temporal proximity between evidence of heightened criminal activity and the date of the stop.
4.) The officer’s familiarity with the area.
5.) The assignment of specialized police units targeting high-crime areas.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed a flexible, fact-sensitive approach that empowers suppression courts to weigh the credibility and relevance of evidence on a case-by-case basis without adopting a strict test to define it.
Impact of this ruling
The takeaway from this case is that simply calling an area “high-crime” is not reason enough to stop, pursue, or detain someone. The Commonwealth must prove that an area is high-crime when relying on this designation as a factor in support of a Terry stop. When representing individuals charged with a crime resulting from a Terry Stop, defense attorneys should consider these factors when building their strategy.
Facing criminal charges or filing an appeal in Philadelphia?
If you are facing criminal charges from a Terry Stop or want to appeal your conviction, we can help.
Call John F. McCaul for a free consultation to discuss the facts of your case. With years of
criminal defense experience in Philadelphia, John will develop the best legal strategy for your circumstances.
Case alert: Commonwealth v. Seth Jason Reich (2025)
