Background
Philadelphia officers on evening patrol saw Maj Tourney standing on West Lehigh Avenue with the handle of a firearm visible through, or “printing” against, his T-shirt. From the patrol car, Officer Paul Moore asked whether Tourney had a permit. Tourney first asked what the officer meant, then referred to keys, apologized, and said he was not carrying anything. When Moore left the car, Tourney began walking away and moved an arm in front of his body. Moore told him not to run and removed a firearm from his waistband.
A database check showed that Tourney did not have a license to carry. He moved to suppress the gun, relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Hicks. Hicks holds that possession of a concealed firearm, standing alone, does not allow police to infer criminal activity because carrying a firearm may be lawful.
At the suppression hearing, Moore described seven years of work in the same district, numerous firearm arrests near the location, and the area’s persistent gun violence. The court also reviewed body-camera video. Tourney testified that he had been recording a podcast, was confused by the questions, and merely turned to leave. The suppression judge credited the officer’s account, denied suppression, and convicted Tourney after a stipulated bench trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court affirmed. Judge Anne E. Lazarus Dubow agreed that the encounter became an investigative detention when Moore left the police vehicle and directed Tourney not to run. The question was therefore whether the officer already possessed specific, articulable facts creating reasonable suspicion at that moment.
Hicks did not require suppression because Moore relied on more than possession of a gun. He personally saw the firearm and heard Tourney deny carrying anything. The panel followed Commonwealth v. Toliver, which held that seeing a protruding gun and detecting a lie about its presence can, by themselves, establish reasonable suspicion. The suppression court was entitled to reject Tourney’s explanation that he misunderstood the questions.
The surrounding circumstances added support. Moore knew the neighborhood, had made firearm arrests in the immediate area, and described an unusual level of violence requiring continuous police attention. He also testified that lawful carriers he had encountered did not falsely deny possessing a visibly apparent gun. Tourney’s movement away and effort to place his arm before the weapon further informed the officer’s assessment. Viewed together through the perspective of an experienced officer, those facts amounted to more than a hunch.
The panel would not reweigh testimony or substitute its view of the video for supported credibility findings. Once the suppression court accepted Moore’s account and rejected Tourney’s claimed confusion, appellate review asked whether those credited facts met the legal standard. They did, so the firearm remained admissible and the reporting-probation sentence stood.
Key Takeaways
- Under Hicks, carrying a concealed firearm by itself does not establish reasonable suspicion in Pennsylvania.
- An officer’s direct observation of a gun combined with a false denial of possession can justify an investigative detention.
- Credibility findings based on testimony and body-camera evidence receive deference when the record supports them.
- Location and police experience may strengthen reasonable suspicion, but they operate as contextual factors rather than substitutes for individualized facts.
Why It Matters
Tourney supplies a practical boundary for firearm encounters after Hicks. Officers may ask questions during a mere encounter, and a person’s possession of a firearm remains presumptively compatible with lawful conduct. But an objectively false response about a weapon the officer can see changes the calculation. That inconsistency can provide the individualized suspicion Hicks found absent from possession alone.
Suppression litigators should focus closely on the timeline. The relevant facts are those known before the seizure, and the precise moment an officer’s words or actions restrain movement can decide the case. Body-camera footage was especially significant here because it allowed the suppression court to evaluate Tourney’s claimed confusion, his responses, and his movement. The memorandum is nonprecedential, but its application of Hicks and Toliver offers useful guidance for Philadelphia firearm cases presenting similar facts.