Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
Investigatory Stops
In deciding whether reasonable suspicion exists for an investigatory stop, analysis is the same under both Article I, sec. 8 and the Fourth Amendment. Commonwealth v. McClease, 750 A.2d 320, 324 (Pa.Super.2000). See also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (1997) (stating that "Pennsylvania has always followed Terry in [investigatory detention] cases.").
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." This assessment, like that applicable to the determination of probable cause, requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, with a lesser showing needed to demonstrate reasonable suspicion in terms of both quantity or content and reliability. Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545, 751 A.2d 1153, 1156 (2000) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868). [excerpted from Commonwealth v. Leonard].
An investigative detention, known as a "Terry stop," subjects a person to a period of detention, without such coercive conditions as to be deemed an arrest. Commonwealth v. Douglass, 372 Pa.Super. 227, 539 A.2d 412, 418 (1988), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 520 Pa. 595, 552 A.2d 250 (1988); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
In order to establish that a stop is custodial in nature, rather than merely an investigative detention, and so coercive as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest, a court considers:
[T]he basis for the detention (the
crime suspected and the grounds for the detention (the crime suspected
and the grounds for suspicion); the duration of the detention; the
location of the detention (public or private); whether the suspect was
transported against his will (how far, why); the method of detention;
the show, threat or use of force; and, the investigative methods used
to confirm or dispel suspicions.
Commonwealth v. Douglass, 372 Pa.Super. 227, 539 A.2d 412, 421 (1988), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 520 Pa. 595, 552 A.2d 250 (1988).
The United States Supreme Court has concluded that a licensee is not in custody when he is stopped by a police officer, asked questions and requested to perform balancing tests. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984).
Custodial detention involves more than the mere restriction of a licensee's movement. Douglass, 539 A.2d at 419.
"To maintain constitutional validity, an investigative detention must be supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity and may continue only so long as is necessary to confirm or dispel such suspicion." Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 58, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (2000).
The police may move the site of an investigative detention in response to security and safety concerns. Commonwealth v. Revere, 585 Pa. 262, 888 A.2d 694 (2005).