Steven Pennycooke was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the trial, he filed a motion to suppress the gun that served as the basis for his conviction, arguing that the police had illegally seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The incident occurred on June 2, 2020, during a period of widespread looting and a citywide curfew in Philadelphia. Two police officers responded to an anonymous report of two men loading an ATM onto a cart. They encountered Pennycooke and his brother, Shawn Collins, near the ATM. The officers testified that Pennycooke removed a heavy object from his waistband, tossed it into a nearby car, and locked it, leading the officers to believe it was a gun. The District Court denied the suppression motion, crediting the officers' testimony over Pennycooke's account, and sentenced Pennycooke to 51 months in prison. Pennycooke appealed, challenging only the denial of the suppression motion.
The Third Circuit applied a mixed standard of review, assessing factual findings for clear error and legal issues de novo. The court first addressed whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop. The court found that the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. The officers responded to an anonymous tip about looting and found Pennycooke and Collins in the vicinity of the reported ATM during a curfew in a high-crime area. Collins was wearing a ski mask despite the heat, and Pennycooke responded evasively to questions about the ATM. Most critically, Pennycooke removed a heavy object from his waistband and surreptitiously threw it into a car, which an experienced officer identified as a gun. The court rejected Pennycooke's argument that the throwing motion occurred after the seizure, noting that his challenge was to the District Court's credibility findings, which were not clearly erroneous. Regarding the arrest, the court held that handcuffing Pennycooke was a reasonable safety measure during the investigatory stop, not a de facto arrest. Once the officer saw the gun in plain view in the car, probable cause for arrest existed under the plain view doctrine.
The decision affirms the conviction and the lower court's ruling that the evidence was admissible. It reinforces the principle that an officer's observation of a suspect attempting to conceal an object, combined with other suspicious factors like curfew violations and evasive behavior, can establish the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Fourth Amendment stop. The ruling clarifies that handcuffing a suspect during such a stop is permissible as a safety measure when an officer reasonably believes a weapon is present, and that the subsequent discovery of the weapon in plain view provides the probable cause needed for arrest. No remand instructions were issued as the conviction was affirmed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download