United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical
Evidence (Doc. No. 20). In the Motion, Kevin Jamelle Archie
(“Defendant”) asserts a Fourth Amendment
challenge to his personal seizure by the Government and the
seizure of a Glock Model 17, nine millimeter semiautomatic
handgun (the “firearm”). Defendant asserts that
the firearm must be suppressed because Philadelphia Police
Officer Anthony Agudo lacked the necessary reasonable
suspicion to stop and seize him, and that the finding and
seizure of the firearm was the fruit of his illegal seizure.
Government filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Doc. No. 27), and the
Court held a hearing on the Motion on April 18, 2017. For
reasons that follow, the Court finds that the seizures of
Defendant and the firearm were lawful. Accordingly,
Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 20) will be
Kevin Jamelle Archie is charged with possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g)(1) and 924(e). (Doc. No. 9.) The seizures occurred on
September 10, 2016 and an evidentiary hearing on the Motion
was held on April 18, 2017. At the hearing, the Government
presented the testimony of Philadelphia Police Officers
Anthony Agudo and Officer Keven Creely.
Agudo testified that he has been a uniform patrol officer
with the Philadelphia Police Department in the 24th District
for about two years. (Doc. No. 33 at 7.) On September 10,
2016, he was working two shifts, back-to-back, from 4:00 p.m.
to 4:00 a.m. (Id.) That night, he was in a patrol
car with Officer Creely, who was driving. (Id. at
8.) At approximately 12:20 a.m., the officers received a
radio call informing them that a person with a gun was at the
intersection of Frankford and Pacific. (Id. at 9.)
The person was described as “a black male, 5-7, wearing
a grey tank top and black shorts.” (Id.)
Officer Agudo testified that at the time he did not know
where that information came from, just that they received it
from the dispatcher. (Id.) Their patrol car left
headquarters at 3901 Whitaker Avenue, and the officers went
straight to the location identified in the radio call.
the officers arrived at the location noted in the radio call,
they saw two black males, one of which fit the description of
the person in the radio call. (Id. at 10.) At the
hearing, Officer Agudo identified Defendant Archie as the
male he determined fit the description of the person referred
to in the radio call. (Id.) Officer Agudo next
testified as follows:
Q: And what was [Defendant] doing when you first saw him?
A: [When] I first saw him it appeared that he looked towards
our direction as we were coming up northbound on Frankford
Avenue and then he began to walk eastbound with that male
that he was with and they walked eastbound on the northbound
* * *
Q: And, once you saw them walking eastbound, what happened
A: At that time, my partner made a right hand turn, so we
went eastbound on 2000 Pacific, saw that he was matching the
flash information given to us by the police radio, I got out
Q: When you say “he”, who are you talking about?
A: The defendant.
Q: Thank you.
A: So, at that time, I exited the patrol car and I went
around back as my partner kept moving forward eastbound,
like, following the defendant.
(Doc. No. 33 at 12-13.)
Agudo then saw that the two men had split up. The second man,
also a black male, walked eastbound on the northbound
sidewalk, while Defendant “went in-between two parked
vehicles” on the northbound sidewalk. (Id. at
13.) Argudo saw Defendant drop a black metallic object. The
officer heard it fall. (Id.) When asked about
Defendant's body position as he placed the object on the
ground, Officer Agudo stated: “It appeared that he
just, like, bent down a little bit, as he was looking towards
the -- in the direction of the ...