J-A05031-26 2026 PA Super 176
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JESUS CORREA :
:
Appellant : No. 1492 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 28, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004360-2022
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
OPINION BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 5, 2026
Jesus Correa (“Correa”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
following his non-jury convictions for possession with intent to deliver
(“PWID”) and knowing or intentional possession of a controlled substance
(“K&I”).1 Because his claims are meritless, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history are as follows: On February 14, 2022,
Sergeant Connor Dooley (“Sergeant Dooley”) and his partner, Officer
Fuentes,2 were on duty in the Kensington section of Philadelphia, when they
stopped a car with a stolen license plate in which Correa was a passenger.
See N.T., 1/10/24, at 6-9.3 Officer Fuentes approached the driver. Sergeant
1 See 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16).
2 The certified record does not contain Officer Fuentes’s first name.
3 Sergeant Dooley and Officer Fuentes were on patrol as part of a task force
investigating illegal narcotics activity and violent crimes. See N.T., 1/10/24, at 8.
J-A05031-26
Dooley approached the passenger side of the car and began to ask Correa
standard questions, including, “[Are] there any weapons in the vehicle—
firearms specifically[? Are] there any narcotics or any contraband in the
vehicle?” Id. at 9. Sergeant Dooley testified Correa, who remained on a cell
phone call during their interaction, did not give a verbal response to these
questions but looked away, slightly nodded, and shook his head, indicating
the answer “no.” See id. at 9, 17. After Sergeant Dooley asked his questions,
Correa stated he had just come from a bail bondsman where he had paid a
bond for an open gun possession case. See id. at 9. Meanwhile, the driver
of the car revealed to Officer Fuentes that he did not have any paperwork
identifying him as the owner or permitted user of the car; in light of the
driver’s statement, the officers removed Correa and the driver from the car.
See id. at 10
Based on Correa’s response indicating his open firearms charge,
Correa’s action of pressing his body against the car as he stepped out, and
Sergeant Dooley’s plan to place Correa in the back of the police vehicle during
an investigative detention, Sergeant Dooley conducted a Terry frisk of Correa.
See id. at 10. The frisk revealed what Sergeant Dooley immediately
recognized to be a narcotics package in Correa’s front waistband area. See
id. at 11. The officers recovered from Correa’s front waistband 96 packages
with blue glassine inserts stamped “Red Lobster,” containing 3.9 grams of
fentanyl. See id. at 12-14.
-2-J-A05031-26
Correa filed a motion to suppress. The suppression court held a hearing
and denied the motion. See id. at 35. That same day, Correa waived his
right to a jury trial and the trial court convicted him of the above-listed
offenses. See id. at 37-46. The court imposed a sentence of one to two years
of imprisonment, followed by two years of probation. Correa appealed and he
and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Correa raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the lower court erroneously denied suppression, where
police obtained evidence pursuant to a warrantless pat-down
search without reasonable suspicion that [] Correa was armed and
dangerous?
2. Whether the lower court erroneously denied suppression by
concluding police obtained the evidence during a search incident
to [] Correa’s arrest, where there was no probable cause for an
arrest?
Correa’s Brief at 3-4.
In his first issue, Correa asserts the police lacked reasonable suspicion
he was armed and dangerous that would permit a Terry4 frisk.
This Court’s standard of review regarding a challenge to a suppression
ruling is limited to determining whether the suppression court’s findings of
fact are supported by the record and the legal conclusions drawn from those
facts are correct. See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 273 A.3d 1190, 1195
(Pa. Super. 2022). Where the Commonwealth has prevailed below, this Court
4 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
-3-J-A05031-26
may only consider the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the defense
evidence as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as
a whole. See id. It is the suppression court’s sole province as factfinder to
pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to give their testimony.
See id. When the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings,
we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in
reaching its legal conclusions from those facts. See Commonwealth v.
Williams, 941 A.2d 14, 27 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).
This Court’s scope of review is limited to the evidentiary record at the
suppression hearing. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 126 (Pa.
Super. 2023). When an appellant asserts legal error in a suppression court’s
ruling, it is the Court’s duty to determine if the suppression court properly
applied the law to the facts. See Commonwealth v. Byrd, 235 A.3d 311,
319 (Pa. 2020) (stating a suppression court’s conclusions and legal rulings are
subject to de novo review).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,
Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect private citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. See
Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa. 2000) (citing United
States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 551 (1980)). “A warrantless search or
seizure is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and
Article I, § 8, subject to a few specifically established, well-delineated
-4-J-A05031-26
exceptions.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa. Super.
2022) (citation omitted). One of those exceptions permits the police to
conduct a stop and frisk when circumstances warrant. See Commonwealth
v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016).
“Not every encounter between a law enforcement officer and a citizen
constitutes a seizure warranting constitutional protections.” Commonwealth
v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1195, 1199 (Pa. 2019). As our Supreme Court has
explained there are three types of encounters between police and a citizen
and the nature of the encounter determines the nature of constitutional
protection, if any:
We have long recognized three types of interactions that
occur between law enforcement and private citizens. The first is
a mere encounter, sometimes referred to as a consensual
encounter, which does not require the officer to have any
suspicion that the citizen is or has been engaged in criminal
activity. This interaction also does not compel the citizen to stop
or respond to the officer. A mere encounter does not constitute a
seizure, as the citizen is free to choose whether to engage with
the officer and comply with any requests made or, conversely, to
ignore the officer and continue on his or her way. The second
type of interaction, an investigative detention, is a temporary
detention of a citizen. This interaction constitutes a seizure of a
person, and to be constitutionally valid police must have a
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. The third, a
custodial detention, is the functional equivalent of an arrest and
must be supported by probable cause. A custodial detention also
constitutes a seizure.
No bright lines separate these types of encounters, but the
United States Supreme Court has established an objective test by
which courts may ascertain whether a seizure has occurred to
elevate the interaction beyond a mere encounter. The test, often
referred to as the “free to leave test,” requires the court to
determine “whether, taking into account all of the circumstances
-5-J-A05031-26
surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have
communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty
to ignore the police presence and go about his business.”
Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his
freedom to walk away, he has seized that person.
Id. at 1199-1200 (internal citations, some quotations, and brackets omitted).
When police command a suspect to stop, an investigative detention
occurs, otherwise known as a Terry stop. See Commonwealth v. Jackson,
271 A.3d 461, 464 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also Terry, 392 U.S. 1; Adams,
205 A.3d at 1199-1200. Two conditions must be present for police to frisk a
suspect during a Terry stop: “First, the investigatory stop must be lawful.”
Interest of T.W., 261 A.3d 409, 417 (Pa. 2021) (citation omitted). An
investigatory stop of a car is lawful where an officer has probable cause to
believe the vehicle is not in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Code and stops
the car on that basis. See Commonwealth v. Malloy, 257 A.3d 142, 148
(Pa. Super. 2021). “Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police
officer must reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous.”
T.W., 261 A.3d at 417 (quoting Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326-27
(2009)).
“A reasonable suspicion analysis considers the totality of the
circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Stoney, 347 A.3d 671, 678 (Pa. Super.
2025). “[A]n investigative detention is constitutionally permissible if an officer
identifies ‘specific and articulable facts’ that led the officer to believe that
criminal activity was afoot, considered in light of the officer’s training and
-6-J-A05031-26
experience.” Adams, 205 A.3d at 1205 (citations omitted). The reasonable
suspicion test is not limited to consideration of only those facts that clearly
indicate criminal conduct. See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185,
1189 (Pa. 2004). “Rather, [e]ven a combination of innocent facts, when taken
together, may warrant further investigation by the police officer.” Id.
(alteration in original) (citations omitted).
In Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), the United States
Supreme Court held that “police officers may seize contraband detected during
a lawful frisk if the identity of the illegal contraband is ‘immediately apparent’
upon touching the object.” T.W., 261 A.3d at 420 (citing Dickerson, 508
U.S. at 375).
Correa asserts police frisked him without reasonable suspicion he was
armed and dangerous. He states he was cooperative with the officers and
disagrees with Sergeant Dooley’s testimony he declined to respond verbally
and was on the phone during the encounter. See Correa’s Brief at 21-22.
Next, Correa argues there is no body camera footage of him pressing his body
against the car, and even if there was, that conduct occurred after he was
asked to step out of the vehicle and put his hands on the car. See id. at 23.5
Finally, Correa argues Sergeant Dooley did not develop reasonable suspicion
5 Correa also argues that Sergeant Dooley created the need to pat down Correa by placing him in the back of the police cruiser. See Correa’s Brief at 24-25.
-7-J-A05031-26
upon learning about Correa’s open firearms case because Correa volunteered
this information to the officers, “which is the opposite of suspicious behavior.”
Id. at 26. The legitimacy of the vehicle stop is uncontested.
At the hearing, the suppression court stated that once the officers
decided to put Correa in the police car, the officers had the right to ensure
Correa was unarmed and to perform a safety frisk before placing him in the
patrol car. See N.T., 1/10/24, at 34-35.
In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court stated reasonable suspicion
Correa was involved in criminal activity existed because Correa was in a stolen
car in a high-crime area where police officers were investigating illegal
narcotics activity and violent crimes. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/18/25, at 6;
see also N.T., 1/10/24, at 8 (Sergeant Dooley testifying Kensington and the
greater North Philadelphia area is “a very high narcotics trade and violent
crimes . . . area.”). The court further explained reasonable suspicion Correa
was armed and dangerous existed based on Sergeant Dooley’s credible
testimony. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/18/25, at 8.
The trial court did not err by finding Sergeant Dooley had reasonable
suspicion Correa was armed and dangerous, permitting a Terry frisk. Correa
was a passenger in a stolen vehicle, and neither he nor the driver could
produce registration. Seemingly in response to the questions about whether
he was armed or had narcotics on him or in the car, Correa volunteered the
fact he was returning from seeing a bail bondsman for an open firearms
-8-J-A05031-26
charge. See N.T., 1/10/24, at 17. Although Correa characterizes his
statement as “the opposite of suspicious behavior,” Correa’s Brief at 26, the
existence of the firearm charge against him created a reasonable belief he
might be armed.6 See In re O.J., 958 A.2d 561, 564 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en
banc) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (explaining “roadside encounters[]
between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may
arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a
suspect.”). Further, the interaction occurred in a high crime area, another
factor supporting the existence of reasonable suspicion; in fact, a police
officer’s observations of a defendant’s conduct in a high crime area can
contribute to a finding not only of reasonable suspicion but of probable cause,
which requires a higher quantum of suspicion. See Commonwealth v.
Joseph, 34 A.3d 855, 863-64 (Pa. Super. 2011). Here, the officers knew
Correa was in a stolen vehicle, was on bail on a firearms charge, and the
interaction occurred in a high crime area. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, Sergeant Dooley had reasonable suspicion Correa may be
armed and dangerous, permitting a Terry frisk.7 See In re D.M., 781 A.2d
6 Moreover, Correa may have chosen to reveal the gun charge knowing the
officer would discover it independently through a search on a computer in the squad car.
7 Correa cites Commonwealth v. Miller, 333 A.3d 470 (Pa. Super. 2025), to
support the proposition that Sergeant Dooley failed to articulate specific facts from which he inferred Correa was armed and dangerous. See Correa’s Brief (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-9-J-A05031-26
1161, 1163-64 (Pa. 2001) (citations omitted) (explaining while presence in a
high crime area alone does not establish reasonable suspicion, “the fact that
at 18-20. Miller, however, involved an appellant who was frisked on suspicion of drug activity alone. See Miller, 333 A.3d at 474. Correa’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Kent, No. 2427 EDA 2024, 2025 WL 2159081 (Pa. Super. July 30, 2025) (non-precedential memorandum) is similarly misplaced; in that case, officers frisked Kent solely because the car in which he was a passenger was in a “try-and-locate” status. See Kent, 2025 WL 2159081 at *1. Neither Miller nor Kent involved a stolen car nor a passenger’s admission to an open firearms charge. Thus, those cases are inapposite.
Additionally, Correa cites Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25 (Pa. 2021), to argue the area’s crime rate should have no relevance towards a reasonable suspicion analysis. However, Barr discussed the importance of a “high crime” area in the context of an analysis of the existence of probable cause to conduct a warrantless car search; it determined the police lacked probable cause to search a car without a warrant based solely on a vehicle stop and the smell of marijuana. See Barr, 266 A.3d at 44. Thus, Barr does not apply here.
Finally, Correa conflates the consideration of prior arrests in sentencing with the consideration of prior arrests in a reasonable suspicion analysis. Correa cites Commonwealth v. Berry, 323 A.3d 641 (Pa. 2024), to support his proposition that a previous arrest “ultimately means nothing.” Correa’s Brief at 27 (citing Berry, 323 A.3d at 654); see also Correa’s Reply Brief at 1. However, Berry did not concern the relevance of prior arrests to an officer in the field assessing reasonable suspicion; it held that a sentencing court cannot consider prior arrests. See Berry, 323 A.3d at 655.
Relevant, recent case law from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees a suspect’s presence in a high crime area is relevant to assessing reasonable suspicion. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 343 A.3d 1016, 1029 (Pa. 2025).
- 10 -J-A05031-26
[a] stop occurred in a ‘high crime area’” can be a factor establishing
reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk). 8
In his second and final issue, Correa asserts that the search incident to
arrest exception to the warrant requirement cannot apply because he was
arrested without probable cause. In other words, because his arrest was not
valid, the search incident to arrest exception did not apply.
As this Court has explained, probable cause exists:
when the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s
knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy
information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of
reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been
committed by the person to be arrested. The question we ask is
not whether the officer’s belief was correct or more likely true than
false. Rather, we require only a probability, and not a prima facie
showing, of criminal activity. Whether probable cause exists is a
highly fact-sensitive inquiry that must be based on the totality of
the circumstances as viewed through the eyes of a prudent,
reasonable, cautious police officer guided by experience and
training.
Commonwealth v. Sears, 311 A.3d 34, 39 (Pa. Super. 2024) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
Correa argues the fact the car had stolen plates was insufficient to arrest
him because he was merely a passenger in the car. See Correa’s Brief at 31.
8 Because the police had reasonable suspicion to perform a Terry frisk, we do
not address the suppression court’s assertion of the right to conduct a “safety” frisk, outside of the confines of Terry or any other exception to the warrant requirement.
- 11 -J-A05031-26
We do not reach the question of whether there was probable cause to
arrest Correa prior to Sergeant Dooley finding the narcotics. Because the stop
and frisk were valid pursuant to Terry, the existence of another exception to
the warrant requirement is irrelevant. See, e.g., Simonson, 148 A.3d at 797
(listing the several exceptions, including stop and frisk and search incident to
arrest).9 Therefore, given our disposition of Correa’s first claim, this claim
could not provide a basis for relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 8/5/2026
9 In the event that Correa contests probable cause to arrest him after Sergeant Dooley found the fentanyl, his claim is meritless. Sergeant Dooley had years of experience and had recovered narcotics over one hundred times. See N.T. 1/20/24, at 7, 11. Sergeant Dooley testified that, upon patting down Correa, he immediately recognized the rectangular packages as a typical way in which heroin is packaged. See id. at 11-12, 18. Thus, through the eyes of Sergeant Dooley, guided by his ample experience and training, there was probable cause to arrest Correa for narcotics-related charges. See Sears, 311 A.3d at 39.
- 12 -