
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Stephen MACKEY, Appellant
    No. 1460 EDA 2015
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted October 17, 2016
    Filed December 20, 2017
    
      Jason C. Kadish, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Jessica D. Khan, Assistant District Attorney, and Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    BEFORE: BOWES, J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
    
    
      
       Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    
   OPINION BY

MOULTON, J.:

Stephen Mackey appeals from the April 13, 2015 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his convictions for persons not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm-without a license, and carrying a firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia. While we acknowledge the significant challenges presented by the facts in this case, we conclude that under controlling precedent the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Mackey. Accordingly, we overturn the trial court’s denial' of Mackey’s motion to suppress and vacate the judgment of sentence. ‘

This case involves a recurring scenario — the police receive an anonymous tip that a person matching a particular description in a particular location is carrying a firearm. When such a tip appears to raise a legitimate concern for public safety, the police have a manifést obligation to treat it seriously. As Judge Bowes aptly notes in her concurring opinion, “‘[i]t would have been poor police work indeed’ for the officers to simply ignore the tip just because possession of a firearm is not per se illegal. Conc. Op. at 237 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). At the same time, in light of the tipster’s cloak of anonymity, the police must also account for the possibility thát the tip is either in error or, worse, a sham designed to cause trouble for a person who is not carrying a weapon. In responding to such a tip, there-, fore, as in countless other recurring situations, the police' must balance their obligation to protect the public from danger with their constitutional duty to respect the rights of all citizens. Striking that balance is particularly challenging when the safety concern, while significant, is based not on police observations but solely on the unverified allegations of a person who cannot be held to account if those allegations prove false.

The essential facts in this case, developed at a hearing on Mackey’s motion to suppress, are largely undisputed. Philadelphia Police Officer Marcus O’Shaughnessy testified that on July 23, 2014, while on routine patrol, he received a radio call for a “person with a gun” aboard the Route 3 SEPTA bus, number 8323, traveling eastbound on Cecil B. Moore Avenue. According to the call, the suspect was described as “a black male wearing a white T-shirt and a flowered hat.” N.T., 2/9/16, at 10. Officer O’Shaughnessy, along with another officer, found, stopped, and boarded the bus within two minutes of receiving the radio call. The trial court described what happened on the bus as follows:

Officer. O’Shaughnessy entered the bus, which was filled with 60 to 60 passengers, and he immediately observed [Mackey] wearing a pink-and-green-flowered hat and a shirt that was white on the back and black on the front.2 (See N.T. 02/09/15, pp. 5-12,16-17).
2 Officer- O’Shaughnessy described the flowered hat as extremely dis-tinetive in that it was a “bucket” ,hat patterned with pink and green flowers. (See N.T. 02/09/15, p. 17).
Officer O’Shaughnessy testified that he drew his’- firearm and commanded that [Mackey] show his hands; [Mackey] compliéd.’ He described [Mackey] as sitting up straight, while all the other passengers were leaning away and trying to duck for cover. [Mackey] was then handcuffed and led off the bus for passenger as well as officer safety. [Mackey] denied having any weapons; however, as he was being led off the bus, [Mackey] was not walking normally, he was “waddling”. Officer O’Shaughnessy observed [Mackey] waddling for 20 to 25 feet. He testified that in his experience as an officer, he believed that [Mackey] was trying to keep a gun from falling out of his loose-fitting pants. Officer O’Shaugh-nessy then frisked [Mackey] and felt the gun, which he recovered from [Mack-ey’s] waistband. The, gun, which was loaded, was secured under , property receipt. The entire incident took less than five (5) minutes. (See N.T, 02/09/15, pp. 12-17).

Trial Court Opinion,' 12/24/15/ at 2-3 (“1925(a) Op.”) (some internal citations omitted).

The trial .court denied the -motion to suppress, concluding that Officer O’Shaughnessy had properly removed Mackey from the bus out. of a concern for public safety and that, based on a combination of the detailed tip, Mackey’s response to the officer drawing and pointing his service weapon, and Mackey’s “waddling” off the bus, the officer had reasonable suspicion to frisk Mackey for weapons. 1925(a) Op. at 6. Mackey proceeded to a non-jury trial ,on stipulated facts, after which the trial court convicted him of the offenses listed above. On April 13, 2015, following a pre-sentence investigation, the trial court sentenced Mackey to 2 to 5 years’ incarceration, followed by 3 years’ probation on the conviction for persons not to possess a firearm. The court imposed no further penalty on the remaining convictions. Mackey filed a timely notice of appeal on May 11, 2015.

Mackey raises the following issues on appeal:

A. Did law enforcement detain ... Mackey without the required reasonable suspicion?
B. Did law enforcement subject ... Mackey to a constitutionally infirm frisk?

Mackey’s Br. at 2 (full capitalization and suggested answers omitted).

In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, our role is to determine:

whether the suppression' court’s factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those' facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when, read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 605 Pa. 188, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Our scope of review is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. In re L.J., 622 Pa. 126, 79 A.3d 1073, 1080 (2013).

Mackey first alleges that he was illegally detained because Officer O’Shaughnessy lacked reasonable suspicion to believe Mackey was carrying a weapon. According to Mackey, at the moment of detention, Officer O’Shaughnessy lacked reasonable suspicion to seize him because the officer possessed only anonymous radio information that a person partially matching Mackey’s appearance was armed, and the officer “did not observe any criminal activity to corroborate the radio call.” Mackey’s Br. at 5,10.

The Commonwealth responds that “the totality of the circumstances established reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity might be afoot.” Cmwlth.’s Br. at 8. The Commonwealth notes that Officer O’Shaughnessy received a detailed tip that described Mackey’s appearance, as well as information that he was on a specific bus headed eastbound on Cecil B. Moore Avenue. Id. In addition to the tip, the Commonwealth relies on Mackey’s “unusual” behavior when Officer O’Shaughnessy drew his service weapon and Mackey’s “waddling” off the bus in support of its claim that the officer reasonably believed Mackey was carrying a weapon. Id. at 9.

The investigation of possible criminal activity invariably brings police officers in contact with members of the' public. Depending on the circumstances, a police-citizen encounter may implicate the liberty and privacy interests of the citizen as embodied in both the federal constitution, see U.S. Const. art. IV,' and our state constitution, see Pa. Const, art. I, § 8. The law recognizes three distinct levels of interaction between police officers and citizens: (1) a mere encounter; (2) an investigative detention, often described as a Terry stop, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); and (3) á custodial detention. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa.Super. 2005).

“A mere encounter can be any formal or informal interaction between an officer and a citizen, but will normally be an inquiry by , the officer of a citizen. The hallmark of this interaction is that it carries no official compulsion to stop or respond,” Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633, 636 (Pa.Super. 2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted), and therefore need not be justified by any level of police suspicion. Commonwealth v. Polo, 563 Pa. 218, 759 A.2d 372, 375 (2000).

“In contrast, an ‘investigative detention’ ... carries an official compulsion to stop and respond .... Since this interaction has elements of official compulsion it requires reasonable suspicion of unláwful activity.” DeHart, 745 A.2d at 636. In addition, while reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity is sufficient to justify a forcible stop, it does not necessarily justify a frisk for weapons. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 102 A.3d 996, 999 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“A Terry frisk is a type of investigative detention requiring reasonable 'suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others.”) (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis added). Only when, the officer reasonably believes the suspect may be armed and dangerous is a weapons frisk appropriate. See Commonwealth v. Pinney, 474 Pa. 210, 378 A.2d 293, 296 (1977) (“[I]n the case of a self-protective search for weapons, a police officer must be able to point to particular facts from which he could reasonably infer that the individual was armed and dangerous.”).

Finally, “a custodial detention occurs when the nature, duration and conditions of an invéstigative detention become so coercive as to be, practically speaking, the functional equivalent of an arrest.” DeHart, 745 A.2d at 636. This level of interaction requires that the police have probable cause to believe that the person so detained has committed, or is committing a crime. See Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 662 A.2d 1043, 1047 (1995) (citing Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979)).

The parties agree that Mackey’s seizure was an investigative detention. Thus, the central issue is whether Officer O’Shaugh-nessy possessed the necessary “reasonable suspicion” to detain Mackey at the time that detention commenced.

Preliminarily, however, we must determine at what point Mackey was detained. See Commonwealth v. Riley, 715 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa.Super. 1998) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868) (noting that reasonable suspicion analysis examines circumstances when stop began). Determining that point with precision is crucial to'the constitutional analysis because the police must have reasonable suspicion at the moment of detention; information developed after a police-citizen encounter moves from consensual to coercive cannot be used to justify the detention. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (“[T]he reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search.”); Commonwealth v. Wiley, 858 A.2d 1191, 1197 (Pa.Super. 2004).

An investigative detention “constitutes a seizure of a person and activates . the protections of the Fourth Amendment.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 535 Pa. 501, 636 A.2d 619, 622-23 (1994). To determine whether and when a seizure has occurred, we employ “an objective test entailing a determination of whether, in view of all surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave.” Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (2000) (citations omitted). “In evaluating the circumstances;’ the focus is directed toward • whether, by means of physical force or show of authority, the citizen-subject’s movement has in some way been restrained .... In making this determination, courts must apply the totality-of-the-circumstances approach, with no single factor dictating the ultimate conclusion as to whether a seizure has occurred.” Id. at 890.

Officer O’Shaughnessy testifíéd that upon entering the bus, he immediately identified Mackey based on the radio description and then drew his service weapon and pointed it at Mackey while ordering Mackey to show his hands. N.T. at 14-15. At that moment — when the officer pointed his weapon at Mackey and ordered him to show his hands — Mackey was detained. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (listing “examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure,” including “the display of a weapon by an officer ... or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.”).

The Commonwealth does not appear to disagree that Mackey was detained once the officer ordered him to put his hands in the air. Instead, it recasts the scene on the bus as follows: Officer O’Shaughnessy drew his weapon as soon as he boarded the bus, observed that “everyone on the bus except for [Mackey] ducked [while Mack-ey] stared straight at the officer,” and then ordered Mackey to raise his hands. Cmwlth.’s Br. at 8-9. The Commonwealth draws this time line in order- to include Mackey’s unique response to the drawn service weapon as part of the quantum of evidence that it claims gave Officer O’Shaughnessy the reasonable suspicion needed to justify what it describes as the subsequent seizure of Mackey. The chief flaw in this argument is that the Commonwealth’s description of the sequence of events on the bus is not supported by the record. While the Commonwealth is entitled to all “reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience,” Commonwealth v. Holmes, 609 Pa. 1, 14 A.3d 89, 95 (2011), its assertion here is supported neither by the suppression hearing testimony nor by the trial court’s findings of fact, -As both Officer Shaughnessy. testified and the trial court found, the officer pointed his weapon at Mackey and ordered him to raise his hands as soon as he located Mackey on the bus. Mackey’s unique reaction followed, rather than preceded, the seizure.

Next, we must determine whether Officer O’Shaughnessy had reasonable suspicion to detain Mackey when he drew his service weapon and ordered Mackey to show his hands. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes when that officer has “reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity may be afoot.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 555 Pa. 522, 725 A.2d 737, 740 (1999). “[T]he fundamental inquiry- is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that- the action taken was appropriate.” Commonwealth v. Gray, 784 A.2d 137, 142 (Pa.Super. 2001) (citation omitted). We must consider the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as “tips, the reliability of the informants, .time, location, and suspicious activity.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Freeman, 563 Pa. 82, 757 A.2d 903, 908 (2000)). As noted above, however, the relevant “totality” of circumstances does not include events that occurred after the.seizure was effectuated. For this reason, we may not consider either Mackey’s reaction to the drawn gun or his-“waddling” off the bus in an apparent attempt to keep a weapon from slipping down his pants. Because both events occurred after the seizure, neither is relevant to the reasonable suspicion analysis.

Where an investigative detention is based on an anonymous tip, “we must determine whether under the totality of the circumstances the informant’s tip established the necessary reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 705 A.2d 887, 892 (Pa.Super. 1997) (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990)). The veracity and reliability of anonymous tips are particularly difficult for the police to evaluate. See White, 496 U.S. at 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412. Unlike trusted (or at least tested) informants or members of the public not concealing their identity, anonymous tipsters know they cannot be held to account for false allegations. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). In addition, they often fail to reveal the basis for their alleged knowledge and are generally unavailable to an.swer follow-up questions from police. See White, 496 U.S. at 329, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 237, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)).

The United States Supreme Court has made clear that an anonymous tip that a particular person in a particular location is carrying a firearm does not, by itself, establish reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention. J.L., 529 U.S. at 274, 120 S.Ct. 1375. In J.L., police received an anonymous tip that a “young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.” Id. at 268, 120 S.Ct. 1375. Two officers responded to the call and, about six minutes later, arrived at the bus stop to find three black males. Id. One of the males, J.L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Id. “Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct.” Id. Acting solely on the anonymous tip and matching description, officers ordered J.L. to “put his hands on the bus stop, frisked him, and seized a gun from J.L.’s pocket.” Id.

Recognizing that “an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity,” the J.L. Court analyzed whether the^ tip contained “sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop.” Id. at 270, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (quoting White, 496 U.S. at 327, 329, 110 S.Ct. 2412). The Court unanimously held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion based on the anonymous tip:

The tip in the instant case lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in White[ ] and essential to the Court’s decision in that case. The anonymous call concerning J.L. provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility. That the allegation about the gun turned out to be correct does not suggest that the officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable basis for suspecting J.L. of engaging in unlawful conduct: The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search. All the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J.L. If White was a close case on the reliability of anonymous tips, this one surely falls on the other side of the line.

Id. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375.

Three years prior to J.L., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion announced by the J.L. Court— police lack reasonable suspicion where an anonymous tip merely provides a description and the location of a person who the tipster claims is armed. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 698 A.2d 571 (1997). In Jackson, an officer received a radio report “of a man in green jacket carrying a gun” in a specific location. Jackson, 698 A.2d at 572. The officer responded within two minutes, finding Jackson, who was wearing a green jacket, amongst a group of people. Id. The officer immediately frisked Jackson and did not find a gun, but did find a small key box that contained packets of cocaine. Id.

The Jackson Court concluded that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Jackson, noting that “[w]hen ... the underlying source of the police department’s information is an anonymous telephone call, ... the tip should be treated with particular suspicion.” Id. at 575. The Court adopted the following reasoning from its earlier plurality opinion in Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652, 692 A.2d 1068 (1997):

The fact that the subject of the call was alleged to be carrying a gun, of course, is merely another allegation, and it supplies no reliability where there was none before. And since there is no gun exception to the Terry requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in the typical anonymous caller situation, the police will need an independent basis to establish the requisite suspicion.

Id. (quoting Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1070). Thus, “the police must establish that they have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in, or about to commit a crime. If the tip contains sufficient information, the police can do this by corroborating sufficient details of the tip. Otherwise, the police must investigate further by means not constituting a search and seizure.” Id.

Our decision today is controlled by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in J.L., as well as by our Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson. The facts in J.L. and this case are nearly indistinguishable — the only difference being that Mack-ey was traveling on a bus whereas the suspect in J.L. was standing at a bus stop. Like the officers in J.L., Officer O’Shaugh-nessy stopped Mackey within minutes of receiving the radio call, based, on the matching appearance and location. Like the officers in J.L., Officer O’Shaughnessy seized his suspect on arrival, without developing any support for the tipster’s assertion that the suspect was armed. Further, both anonymous tips reported only that the person in question was armed— there was no suggestion that either suspect was carrying a firearm without a license or was otherwise involved in or about to commit a crime. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108. Indeed, in neither case did the officers on the scene observe any signs of distress from others in the vicinity. In sum, in this case as in J.L., “[a]ll the police had to go on ... was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about [the suspect.]” J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. Absent any independent information to corroborate the anonymous tip, we conclude that Officer O’Shaughnessy lacked reasonable suspicion to seize Mackey and, therefore, the gun recovered should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal seizure.

In its opinion, the trial .court relied heavily on the officer’s confirmation of Mackey’s precise location and distinctive flowered hat as corroboration for the anonymous tip. 1925(a) Op. at 6. This conclusion, however, is directly contrary to the decision in J.L. Like the tip in J.L., the anonymous tip here only described Mack-ey’s appearance and current location — it provided no predictions of future behavior of any kind that police officers could have' corroborated through observation, let alone any allegations of future criminal activity. See White, 496 U.S. at 332, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (noting that a “caller’s ability to predict ,.. future behavior ... demonstrate[s] inside information [and] a special familiarity with [appellant’s] affairs .... [I]t is reasonable for police to believe that a person with access to such information is likely to also'have access to reliable information about that individual’s illegal activities.”) (emphasis in original). As in J.L., the information provided did not include any indicia of reliability in the tip — the only details police could corroborate were Mackey’s location and his appearance. See J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375; see also Jackson, 698 A.2d at 574 (“[T]he only detail that the police were able to corroborate in this case was the fact that appellant was at the location described, and that he was wearing a green jacket,”). Officer O’Shaughnessy could' not have known “whether the information [from.the radio call] was reliable ....- [or merely] a prank call.” Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1070. Thus, in order to lawfully seize Mackey, Officer O’Shaughnessy needed to corroborate the anonymous tip through further observation.

Despite the lack of independent corroboration, the trial court concluded that the totality of the circumstances provided Officer O’Shaughnessy with reasonable, suspicion that Mackey was armed. 1925(a) Op. at 6. The court found reasonable suspicion based, on the combination of the anonymous tip, Mackey’s “unusual” behavior, his “waddling” off the bus, and his travel through a high-crime area. Id. We disagree. .

As noted above, the relevant inquiry is whether an officer possesses reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before initiating the detention. J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1875; Riley, 715 A.2d at 1135. While experience teaches that the reality of these encounters often does not yield sharp constitutional lines, the prescribed constitutional analysis demands that at the moment an encounter moves from a consensual “mere encounter” to ah investigative detention, police must already have the requisite reasonable suspicion to support,that detention — reasonable suspicion cannot be based on information discovered after the detention has-begun. J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375; see also Wiley, 858 A.2d at 1197 (holding that anonymous tipster’s post-detention revelation- of identity to police could not be considered in reasonable suspicion analysis). A trial court must identify this moment to frame its analysis of the constitutionality of police conduct. Here, the officer’s observations after the detention began, such as Mackey’s behavior in response to having a weapon pointed at him and his “waddling” when exiting the bus, cannot establish that reasonable suspicion existed at the earlier moment of seizure. Officer O’Shaughnessy needed reasonable suspicion that Mackey was committing a crime before initiating the detention, which the anonymous tip alone failed to provide.

Further, while we recognize that a combination of facts may establish reasonable suspicion, see Commonwealth v. Cook, 558 Pa. 50, 735 A.2d 673, 677 (1999) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)), and a suspect’s location in a high-crime area may be a factor supporting an officer’s reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, Mackey’s travel through a high-crime area on a bus does not change our analysis. This fact did not corroborate the information in the anonymous tip and provided no information from which Officer O’Shaughnessy could determine whether Mackey was carrying a firearm, was committing a crime, or was about to commit a crime. See Commonwealth v. Ayala, 791 A.2d 1202, 1210 (Pa.Super. 2002) (“Our caselaw is quite, emphatic that an individual’s mere presence in a high crime area is manifestly insufficient to justify a Terry stop.”)..

The Commonwéalth’s'filial argument in support of affirmance centers on an understandable concern for public safety. In particular, the Commonwealth argues that Officer O’Shaughnessy’s actions were reasonable; ‘ it attempts to distinguish J.L, by citing safety concerns, noting that officers had a “report [that] described a man with a gun on a crowded public bus, an enclosed area where every passenger was at risk.” Cmwlth.’s Br. at 9. While these public safety concerns are palpable, we disagree that they render the officer’s actions constitutional, as the United States Supreme Court rejected similar arguments in J.L.

There, the State of Florida, and the United States as amicus curiae, advanced two related arguments. First, they argued that the Court should create a per se rule finding reasonable suspicion where “(1) an anonymous tip provides a description of a particular person at a particular location illegally carrying a concealed firearm, (2) police promptly verify the pertinent details of the tip except the existence of the firearm, and (3) there are no factors that cast doubt on the reliability of the tip.” J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. Second, they argued that even where a tip is later to found to lack sufficient indicia of reliability, the Court should recognize a public-safety-based “firearm exception” to Terry and categorically allow a stop and frisk where a tip alleges that a person is carrying an illegal firearm. Id. at 272, 120 S.Ct. 1375.

The J.L. Court rejected both of these arguments. With respect to the per se rule, the Court concluded that an anonymous tip, in the context of'reasonable suspicion, requires not only an accurate description that allows for identification but also information that shows “the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity.” Id. In response to the request that it recognize some form of “firearm exception” to Terry, the Court declined, reasoning as follows:

Firearms are dangerous, and extraordinary dangers sometimes justify unusual precautions. Our. decisions recognize the serious threat that armed criminals pose to public safety; Terry’s rule, which permits protective police searches on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than demanding that officers meet the higher standard of probable cause, responds to this very concern. But an automatic firearm exception to . our established reliability analysis would rove too far. Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target’s unlawful carriage of a gun. Nor could one securely confine such an exception to allegations involving firearms. Several Courts of Appeals have held it per se foreseeable for people carrying significant amounts of illegal drugs to be carrying guns as well. If police officers may properly conduct Terry frisks on the basis of bare-boned tips about guns, it would be reasonable to maintain under the above-cited decisions that the police should similarly have discretion to frisk based on bare-boned tips about narcotics. As we clarified when we made indicia of reliability critical in Adams [v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) ] and White, the Fourth Amendment is not so easily satisfied.

Id. at 272-273, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (internal citations omitted, emphasis added); see also Jackson, 698 A.2d at 575 (declining to create a “firearms exception” to Terry under Pennsylvania law because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “is not empowered ... to overrule Terry in favor of a lower standard of protection under the state and federal constitutions”).

While the J.L. Court rejected a categorical “firearms exception,” the Court did not foreclose the possibility that certain types of public-safety concerns could excuse the reliability requirement:

The facts of this case do not require us to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability. We do not say, for example, that a report of a person carrying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability we demand for a report of a person carrying a firearm before the police can constitutionally conduct a frisk.

J.L., 529 U.S. at 273-74, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (emphasis added); see also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (noting that, with respect to “circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint ... the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack”). While the Commonwealth correctly points out that the confined space of a bus presented the officer in this case with a somewhat different and potentially more acute set of safety concerns than did the bus stop in J.L., that difference appears to be one of degree rather than kind. In-any event, we decline to create an exception to the well-established reliability requirement on these facts.

Judgment of sentence reversed.

Judge Bowes joins this Opinion and files a Concurring Opinion.

President Judge Emeritus Stevens files a Dissenting Opinion.

CONCURRING OPINION BY

BOWES, J.:

The Honorable Geoffrey Moulton’s Opinion cogently sets forth why the Commonwealth failed to establish reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime pursuant to Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). The trial court determined that exigent circumstances justified removing Appellant from the bus, with a-subsequent determination that the officers possessed reasonable suspicion to pat down Appellant for a firearm due to actions learned after Appellant was seized. The Opinion aptly explains why the invalid initial seizure requires this Court to ignore information learned after .the seizure. However, the trial court’s application of exigent circumstances alongside reasonable suspicion analysis highlights the difficult Fourth Amendment question presented by this cáse.

“The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is a cardinal principle that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Mincey. v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A specifically-established exception to the-warrant requirement was announced in the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), which, as the lead Opinion articulates, does not. serve to justify, the instant seizure.

The Commonwealth relies upon exigent circumstances as grounds for justifying the seizure. In so doing, the Commonwealth’s argument incorporates exigency considerations into the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity inquiry: “Here, the totality of the circumstances established reasonable suspicion to .believe that criminal activity might be. afoot, and Officer O’Shaughnessy acted reasonably in addressing a serious threat.” Commonwealth’s brief at 8 (emphasis added).

In my view, such an approach misapplies Terry, as the exigencies associated with any particular crime play no role when assessing the validity of a seizure under Terry Thus, stating that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that criminal activity “might” be afoot is doqtrinally incompatible with Terry. To support a stop under Terry, the officer must articulate specific observations which “led him to reasonably conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal activity was afoot and that the person he stopped was involved in that activity.” Commonwealth v. Caban, 60 A.3d 120, 128 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted). The Commonwealth’s statement that the officers had reason to believe that Appellant might be involved in criminal activity'implicitly concedes that reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime did not exist.

On the other hand, the Commonwealth’s argument that the instant tip justified a seizure for investigative purposes, even if the tip did not amount to reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime, is not without some force. “ ‘[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment,’ we have often said, ‘is reasonableness.’ ” Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (quoting Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006)). Warrantless seizures and searches may be deemed reasonable if “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrant-less search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey, supra at 394, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quotation marks ánd citation omitted).

The exigent circumstances doctrine is typically applied in the context of warrant-less entries -and searches of, homes, with the exigency supported -by probable cause of a crime plus some circumstance beyond the mere need to investigate the_ crime. See Commonwealth v. Fickes, 969 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2009) (warrantless entry into garage permitted where officer. in fresh pursuit had probable cause to believe appellant had been driving under the influence; BAC .evidence would likely be lost by time warrant was secured); Commonwealth v. Davido, 630 Pa. 217, 106 A.3d 611 (2014) (warrantless, entry into residence was reasonable under totality of the circumstances as application of emergency aid doctrine due to inherent exigencies in domestic abuse cases); Compare Commonwealth v. Bowmaster, 101 A.3d 789 (Pa.Super. 2014) (assuming that probable cause to search shed and home existed, there was no reason to believe entry was needed to prevent violence, destruction of evidence, or escape, and therefore normal warrant requirement applied). -

This case poses a vexing problem in that an armed individual in a crowded public bus may pose an exigency, i.e., a risk to public safety even in the absence of criminal activity, as demonstrated by the fact that someone felt compelled- to report the activity to the authorities. In the words of Terry, “[i]t would have been poor police work indeed” for the officers to simply ignore'the tip just because possession of a firearm is not per se illegal. Terry, supra at 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Terry itself involved “a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.” Id. at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Herein, the anonymous report offered no insight-into whether the tipster was merely concerned with the presence of a firearm in general, or. whether there was some other concerning behavior. Hence, I conclude that there was a strong governmental interest in investigating this tip, even setting aside the fact that carrying-a firearm is not itself -illegal.18 Pa.C.S. § 6106; 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.

However, Appellant’s presence on a public bus placed the officers herein in something of a constitutional Catch-22. The purported exigency justifying, the police interaction, i.e. an armed man posing- a potential threat to public safety, existed only if the tip itself was sufficiently reliable in its allegation that a firearm was present. The- question is whether the Fourth Amendment demands corroboration given the nature of the anonymous tip. Consider that J.L. noted that the officers “would have had reasonable suspicion that J.L. was engaged in criminal activity only if they could be confident that he was carrying a gun in the first place.” Id. at 273 n.1, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (emphasis added). It is unclear how the uniformed officers herein could realistically fulfill that corrob■oration requirement in a timely fashion without boarding the bus. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s attempt to apply exigent circumstances rationales is understandable.

In this regard, the fact that the exigent circumstances doctrine permits a warrant-less search of a home implicitly supports the notion that the lesser intrusion of a warrantless seizure is likewise reasonable. Nevertheless; I view exigent circumstances and Terry as two separate branches of law, which independently operate as exceptions to the normal Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. To my knowledge, neither the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania nor the United States has held that the requisite quantum of reasonable suspicion of 'criminal activity waxes and wanes depending on the potential crime at issue. Therefore, I believe that the threat to public safety must be analyzed on its own, and not with reference to any particular crime. Language contained within J.L. supports that notion:

The facts of this case do not require us to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability. We do not say, for example, that a report of a person carrying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability we demand for a report of a person carrying a firearm before the police can constitutionally conduct a frisk. Nor do we hold that public safety officials in quarters where the reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment privacy is diminished, such as airports, see Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 308, 83 L.Ed.2d 165 (1984) (per curiam), and schools, see New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), cannot conduct protective searches on the basis of information insufficient to justify searches elsewhere.

J.L., supra at 273-74, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000). As illustrated by the petition for allowance of appeal in Hicks, the dangers posed by the mere presence of a firearm with respect to Fourth Amendment analysis is a matter of dispute. Moreover, the Commonwealth did not allege that Appellant’s expectation of privacy was diminished by virtue of his presence on a public carrier.

That said, I note that the United States Supreme Court arguably distanced itself from J.L. in Navarette v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 1688, 188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014). Therein, the High Court considered the reliability of an anonymous 911 call, which stated that a silver Ford F-150 pickup bearing license plate 8D94925 ran the caller’s vehicle off the road. The tipster reported that the vehicle was heading southbound near a certain mile marker. The Court held that the tip was sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion of an ongoing DUI. This conclusion relied, in part, on the fact that the caller reported she had been run off the road. “By reporting that she had been run off the road by a specific vehicle — a silver Ford F-150 pickup, license plate 8D94925 — the caller necessarily claimed eyewitness knowledge of the alleged dangerous driving. That basis of knowledge lends significant support to the tip’s reliability.” Id. at 1689.

Navarette then distinguished the reliability of that tip from the one in J.L.: “This is in contrast to J.L., where the tip provided no basis for concluding that the tipster had actually seen the gun.” Id. The reasoning employed in Navarette is difficult to square with J.L.’s statement that the “reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.” J.L., supra at 272, 120 S.Ct. 1375. It is unclear why the tip in Navarette was deemed reliable in its description of illegal behavior, ie. an ongoing DUI, as opposed to merely supplying a reliable description of the vehicle engaged in that behavior. Hence, one could easily rephrase Navarette to state in this case that the specific level of information supplied by the caller provided a basis to conclude that the tipster necessarily claimed direct knowledge of observing a firearm.

In this'respect, I observe that in 2009, Chief Justice Roberts, "joined by Justice Scalia, filed a dissent from denial of certio-rari in a case that squarely presented the issue of whether drunk driving warrants special treatment under the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts noted the dilemma faced by police officers when a tip warrants police investigation but is nonetheless insufficient on its face to justify a seizure.

[T]he Virginia Supreme Court ... decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road — by which time it may be too late.
I am not sure that the Fourth Amendment requires such independent corroboration before the police can act, at least in the special context of anonymous tips reporting drunk driving. This is an important question that is not answered by our past decisions, and that has deeply divided federal and state courts. The Court should grant the petition for cer-tiorari to answer the question and resolve the conflict.

Virginia v. Harris, 558 U.S. 978, 130 S.Ct. 10, 175 L.Ed.2d 322 (2009) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

The same consideration extends to this scenario. Had the officers dallied • in an attempt to corroborate the. tip and violence erupted inside the bus, any police action would come too.late. Thus, while Judge. Moulton correctly notes that an automatic firearms exception was rejected by J.L,, that observation was made in the context of a Terry analysis, not exigent circumstances. T am thus not firmly convinced that the Fourth Amendment required independent corroboration by’the police officers under these facts.

Despite my reservations, this case is so factually similar to J.L. that I cannot conclude that the key distinction, Appellant’s presence on a public bus, warrants a contrary outcome. Hicks may ultimately offer guidance on the question of whether the instant detention was reasonable, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime. Until such time, I agree that the similarities between this case and J.L. require reversal.

DISSENTING OPINION BY

STEVENS, P.J.E.:

In a 1999 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652, 692 A.2d 1068 (1997), the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court dismissed as “fanciful and histrionic” the Commonwealth’s references to schoolyard shootings and assassination of public figures as possible consequences if Terry jurisprudence always required independent corroboration of “man with gun” anonymous tips.

Sadly, the Commonwealth’s references in 1997 were neither fanciful nor histrionic; they were, instead, prescient. If anything, our law enforcement officers, our children, and our law-abiding citizens are at risk of serious danger more than ever before from indiscriminate gun use by violent criminals. Such violence, especially the vicious targeting of our law enforcement officers, cannot be tolerated.

The touchstone of Terry is reasonableness, a standard derived .from balancing the government’s interest in intruding, the degree of the intrusion, and the citizen’s counterveiling privacy interest. On balance, the totality of circumstances pertinent to the reasonableness inquiry in the instant case weighed in favor of the government’s interest in promoting public safety by .securing Appellant for a Terry frisk. The “man with gun” tip not only described the suspect’s appearance and location specifically, it also placed him on a crowded bus in a high crime neighborhood.

To invalidate a weapons pat-down under these facts, occurring as they did against a backdrop of escalating acts of random gun violence in our society, would place an undue restraint on law enforcement’s ability to respond effectively to a report of imminent danger and, consequently, would jeopardize both the public’s and police safety.

As former Justices Sandra Newman and Ron Castille so cogently noted:

I can think of no more compelling reason for the police to conduct a Terry stop and frisk than in a situation where they receive a tip that a man with a gun is lingering around a schoolyard. I shudder to think what might happen if the police were forced, as the Majority suggests, to wait for the man to use the gun before they could act.
Accordingly, I would hold that under the totality of the circumstances here, where police immediately found Hawkins, who matched the informant’s description of a “man with a gun” at an exact location in the middle of. the night and, given the likelihood that the gun was illegal, police had sufficient reasonable suspicion that there was a reasonable suspicion of criminal .activity to stop Hawkins and conduct a protective frisk.
... [W]e must consider the nominal intrusion that occurs when police conduct a protective frisk. During a pat-down, police simply feel the outer surface of a suspect’s garments. They do not enter pockets of interior clothing unless they feel an object that could be a concealed weapon. Further, as noted [in United States v. Clipper, 973 F.2d 944 (D.C.Cir. 1992) ], mere surveillance or attempts to approach and question “man with gun” suspects' could have grave consequences. Clearly the safety interests of the police in a “man with gun” case outweigh the limited invasion of privacy that occurs during a patdown search.
... [T]he balancing test in Terry should be resolved in favor of the police in “man with gun” cases. The Majority’s interpretation of Terry in “man with gun” cases ties the hand of the police and leaves them susceptible to ambush and assault.
I agree with the Majority that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution vigorously protects each citizen’s personal privacy, but I believe the Majority has failed to properly weigh the countervailing safety interests of the public and'the police when responding to a “man with a gun” tip in its analysis pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The reality of law "enforcement in today’s society is that bank robbers, fanatics and other gunmen are fully armed and ready to indiscriminately kill citizens and police.” The Majority* loses "sight of the fact that Terry was written to help protect police from the dangers of armed suspects. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and call out for the protection of people in law enforcement and in our entire society through a proper evaluation of their safety interests pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.[ ]

Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1071-76 (Newman, J., dissenting) (citations and footnotes omitted)..

Twenty years after Hawkins, society’s interest in protecting its law enforcement officers and citizens from arbitrary acts of gun violence has clearly become more compelling, more urgent, and more serious than ever before. Waiting for the, man to use the gun would only lead , to another tragic loss of innocent lives.

Accordingly, because I find the totality of circumstances made the “man with gun” tip sufficiently reliable to justify the police response in the present case, I would affirm judgment of sentence. 
      
      . 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 6108, respectively,
     
      
      . The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,' supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     
      
      . Our Supreme Court has held that "the Fourth Amendment [of the United States Constitution] and Article I, [Section] 8 [of the Pennsylvania Constitution] are coterminous for Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)] purposes.” Commonwealth v. Chase, 599 Pa. 80, 960 A.2d 108, 118 (2008). Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides:
      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.
     
      
      . If the officer had reasonable suspicion for the initial detention, he would also have had reasonable suspicion to frisk Mackey for weapons, given that the tip alleged Mackey possessed a firearm.
     
      
      . The trial court's opinion does not specify the point at which Mackey was detained. And while the parties agree that the interaction between Officer O’Shaughnessy and Mackey at some point became an investigative detention, see Mackey’s Br. at 6; Cmwlth.’s Br. at 6, they do.not agree precisely when that occurred.
     
      
      . Officer O'Shaughnessy testified on direct examination as to his actions after boarding the bus:
      Q: Officer, what happened when you entered the bus?
      A: As soon as I got on the bus, going down the aisles — the entire bus was full. Towards the back of the bus, on the left hand side, right by the back door, I saw [Mackey] who, at the time, was wearing a flowered hat described in the radio call. The radio call said a white T-shirt. [Mack-ey's] shirt was white on the back, black on the front, similar to the one he’s wearing today, if not the same one. As I am walking down the aisle, I draw my gun to make sure that he didn't draw his, if he decided to pull it. This is a crowded bus. I don’t want anything to happen.
      Q: Okay. Approximately how much time did it take you to reach [Mackey] at the time?
      A: Seconds.
      Q: Okay. And what happened when you did come into contact with [Mackey]?
      A: While walking down the aisle, I had my weapon pointed at him, told him to show me his hands. He placed his hands up. Once I got closer to him, I asked him to put his hands behind his back so that I could handcuff him for safety of the other passengers,
      
        N.T. at 14-15.
     
      
      . In his brief, Mackey also suggests in passing that he was detained even earlier, when Officer O’Shaughnessy stopped the bus on Cecil B. Moore Avenue. Mackey Br. at 8. In light of our conclusion that Mackey was detained wheri the officer 'raised his service weapon and ordered Mackey 'to show his hands, and that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for that detention, we need not consider this undeveloped argument.
     
      
      . In White, the anonymous tipster provided police information about the appellant's appearance, her vehicle, her starting location and destination, the time appellant would leave, and the route the appellant would take. 496 U.S. at 327, 331, 110 S.Ct. 2412. The United States Supreme Court held that, while the facts presented a "close case,” the information provided indicia of reliability because "only a small number of people are generally privy to a person’s itinerary.” Id. at 332, 110 S.Ct. 2412. However, the White Court emphasized that the “reliability' of the informer’s allegations” was the result of "independent corroboration by the police of significant aspects of the informer’s predictions.” Id.
      
     
      
      . In its opinion, the trial court noted that:
      Officer O’Shaughnessy testified that in his seven years' experience as a police officer, he had made -many arrests for violent crimes,, including 25 for guns, and that 75 . percent of arrests made in the area of 20th and Cecil B. Moore were for crimes of violence, and thus it is known as a high violent crime area. (See N.T. 02/09/15, pp. 7-9).
      1925(a) Op. at 2 n.1.
     
      
      . In its brief, the Commonwealth relies heavily, on the fact that Mackey responded differently than did the other passengers when Officer O’Shaughnessy drew his weapon. See Cmwlth.’s Br. at 8-9. However, as discussed above, we cannot consider Mack-ey's reaction in the reasonable suspicion analysis because that occurred after the detention began — Mackey was clearly seized at the moment Officer O’Shaughnessy pointed his weapon at Mackey. Cf. In re D.M., 566 Pa. 445, 781 A.2d 1161, 1164 (2001) (holding that requisite cause is measured “at the time [police] initially approach[] the [suspect]” and suspect’s flight after seizure cannot be used in reasonable suspicion calculus). Indeed, Mack-ey’s distinctive reaction might well have been based on the fact he, and not the other passengers, was being seized by the police.
     
      
      . It bears noting, as the United States Supreme Court did in J.L., that the fact “[t]hat the allegation about the gun turned out to be correct does not suggest that the officer[], prior to the frisk[ ], had a reasonable basis for suspecting [the subject] of engaging in urilawful conduct." J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. Courts reviewing motions to suppress must guard against the hindsight bias occasioned by the fact that in each such case, the police turned out to be right — the suspect did indeed possess the item (or other evidence of crime), for which the police were searching. The set of circumstances for which our constitutional protections may be more easily understood as valuable — when the police turn out to be wrong in their suspicion that a particular person is engaged in wrongdoing— ■most ofteCh do not result in litigation.
     
      
      . The dissent does not mention, let alone attempt to distinguish, the Supreme Court’s decision in J.L. Instead, it castigates the opinion announcing the judgment in Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652, 692 A.2d 1068 (1997) for failing to take seriously "the Commonwealth’s references to schoolyard shootings and assassination of public figures as possible consequences if Terry jurisprudence always required independent corroboration of ‘man with gun’ anonymous tips,” Dissenting Op. at 240. Whatever the relevance of dicta in a non-binding opinion to the future development of the law in this area, this Court- remains bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
     
      
      . The trial court’s decision was based in part on its belief that Officer O’Shaughnessy’s de-cisión to order Mackey off the bus was the officer’s only reasonable alternative in light of the risk to public safety. 1925(a) Op. at 6 ("Given the tight, crowded quarters and obvious concern for public safety, the officer reasonably removed [Mackey] from the bus.”). We acknowledge that the result in this case, compelled by controlling authority from both the United States Supreme Court and our Supreme Court, begs an important question: What should a police officer do when confronted with the sort of anonymous tip at issue here? The answer, also compelled by controllihg authority, is to conduct the additional investigation necessary to corroborate (or discount) the tip’s allegation. See Jackson, 698 A.2d at 575 ("police must investigate further by means not constituting a search and seizure”).
     
      
      . Here, as in J.L., the anonymous caller did 'not report that Mackey had brandished the weapon, threatened its use, or even told another person that he was carrying a concealed firearm. As the concurring opinion notes, and ”[a]s illustrated by the petition for allowance Of appeal in [Commonwealth v.] Hicks, [— Pa. -, 2017 WL 4351309 (2017) (granting petition for allowance of app.eal)], the dangers posed by the mere presence of a firearm with respect to Fourth Amendment analysis is a matter of dispute." Conc. Op. at 238. Nonetheless, given the close factual similarity of this case to J.L., and the fact that the J.L. Court rejected public safety arguments almost identical to those presented here, we are constrained to reverse. See also id. at 239.
     
      
      . Mackey also argues that Officer O’Shaugh-nessy illegally frisked;him. Mackey’s Br. at 10. While we agree with the Commonwealth that Mackey waived this argument by failing to raise it before the suppression court, see Commonwealth v. Collazo, 440 Pa.Super. 13, 654 A.2d 1174, 1176 (1995), because we have already determined that Officer O’Shaughnes-sy did not have reasonable suspicion to seize Mackey, wp need not address this issue.
     
      
      . Exigencies can arise after a valid stop has occurred. See Commonwealth v. Revere, 585 Pa. 262, 888 A.2d 694 (2005) (some exigencies, particularly, need for safety and security,. -justify transporting a- suspect during a Terry detention).
     
      
      . There are also Second Amendment considerations lurking in these types of cases. The Commonwealth notes that this tip occurred in a high crime area, which arguably creates a compelling law enforcement need to immediately investigate. This same point can be cast in favor of the individual: A higher incidence of crime is a reason why an individual may feel compelled to carry a firearm for self-defense. To this end, I note that the Commonwealth does not suggest or argue that carrying a firearm on a public bus violates the transit agency’s rules or regulations.
     
      
      . On October 2, 2017, our Supreme’ Court granted a petition for allowance of appeal to address the constitutionality of a "bright line rule holding that possession of a concealed firearm in public is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion” is warranted. Commonwealth v. Hicks, — Pa. -, 2017 WL 4351309 (2017). Thus, Hicks may offer.insight into whether the mere fact someone is carrying a concealed weapon, or is .reasonably suspected to be, itself justifies a presumption of danger permitting a frisk. See also United States v. Robinson, 846 F.3d 694, 698 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc) ("This appeal presents the question of whether a law enforcement officer is justified in frisking a person whom the officer has lawfully stopped and whom the officer reasonably believes to be armed, regardless of whether the person may legally be entitled to carry the firearm.”).
     
      
      . The four dissenting Justices in Navarette criticized the majority’s attempts to distinguish J.L. and other anonymous tipster cases. “Today's opinion does not explicitly adopt such a departure from our normal Fourth Amendment requirement that anonymous tips must be corroborated; it purports to adhere to our prior cases, such as [/,!,.] ... Be not deceived.” Id. at 1-692 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
     
      
      . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (holding an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot).
     
      
      . Columbine High School,. Colorado, April 1999: 15 fatally shot victims; Tucson, Arizona, January 2011: assassination attempt of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords leaves six dead and 13 wounded; Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut, December 2012: 28 fatally shot victims; Blooming Grove, Pennsylvania, September 2014: State Trooper Bryon Dickson II fatally shot, State Trooper Alex Douglass critically injured; Washington, D.C., June 2017: armed attack of congressional staff baseball team and capitol police; October 2017, Las Vegas, Nevada: 58 people fatally shot," 546 injured.
     