Background
[J-64-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 50 EAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the Superior : Court entered on September 7, 2023, : at No. 538 EDA 2022, affirming the v. : Order of the Court of Common Pleas : of Philadelphia County, Criminal : Division, entered on January 27, 2022, PHILLIP SHIVERS, : at No. CP-51-CR-0005546-2019. : Appellant : ARGUED: September 10, 2025 : : OPINION JUSTICE DOUGHERTY DECIDED: July 21, 2026 In the seminal decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court held the police may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,1 subject a person to an investigative detention, what is often referred to as a “Terry stop” or simply a “stop,” if they have reasonable suspicion “criminal activity may be afoot[.]” Id. at 30 . Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), the Supreme Court held an individual’s “unprovoked flight” from the police in a “high[-]crime area” established reasonable suspicion for a stop. Presently, appellant Phillip Shivers argues this Court should reject Wardlow under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania 1 U.S.
ding with two other gangs in the area. When the police arrived at the gas station, Shivers was sitting in front of the door to the gas station. He was seated to the right of four or five other men, two of whom were known members of the Ozone Gang. The officers, who were in uniform, exited their car and walked towards Shivers. At that point, Shivers turned and ran through a parking lot and then southbound on Front Street. As he ran, Shivers had his hands in front of him as if he were holding his 2 PA. I, §8 (“The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”). [J-64-2025] – 2 pants up or holding a gun. Officers Sidebotham and Lutz chased him. Officer Lutz tackled Shivers, and Officer Sidebotham seized a loaded gun from his front pants pocket. The Commonwealth charged Shivers with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia, resisting arrest, and providing false identification to law enforcement.3 Following a preliminary hearing, the case was held for court. Shivers filed an omnibus pretrial motion. The motion was a form with blanks which can be checked to specify the nature of the claims being raised.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion of the hearing, in argument on the motion, the Commonwealth squarely argued that reasonable suspicion was established by Shivers’s “[f]light in a high-crime area[.]” Id. at 25. Shivers was presented with a clear and obvious opportunity to make his present departure claim that flight in a high-crime area is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion under Article I, Section 8. Yet he did not make it.7 Shivers also failed to preserve his departure claim in his motion to compel or the hearing on this motion. Indeed, his arguments in support of his motion to compel suggested consideration of the high-crime-area factor was permitted under the Pennsylvania Constitution to the same extent it is allowed under the United States Constitution. His motion alleged that post-Wardlow, “‘high[-]crime areas’ have become a fact of constitutional law[.]” Motion to Compel at ¶6. Similarly, he indicated at the hearing 7 When the suppression court subsequently denied Shivers’s suppression motion on the basis his “unprovoked flight in a high[-]crime area gave the officers reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop him[,]” Shivers again stood silent. Motions Hearing, 2/10/21, at 6. [J-64-2025] – 13 that the “phrase” high-crime area “has a Constitutional legal meaning now . . . under the Fourth Amendment and Article [I], Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution[.]” N.T. Motion to Compel Hearing, 1/10/20, at 5. It was not until this case was pending on appeal to the Superior Court that Shivers first raised his departure claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion of the hearing, in argument on the motion, the Commonwealth squarely argued that reasonable suspicion was established by Shivers’s “[f]light in a high-crime area[.]” Id. at 25.
- Shivers was presented with a clear and obvious opportunity to make his present departure claim that flight in a high-crime area is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion under Article I, Section 8.
- Yet he did not make it.7 Shivers also failed to preserve his departure claim in his motion to compel or the hearing on this motion.
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.