Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Siddiq Nixon, Docket No. 3183 EDA 2023

Facts

• On May 18, 2022, Officers James Gedraitis and Ryan Struble were on patrol in Philadelphia in a marked cruiser, responding to recent crime patterns.  

• As they drove, the officers observed Nixon crossing a street. One saw an object in his right front pants pocket that looked like the grip of a firearm. Because Nixon appeared to be under 21, the officer believed he was unlawfully carrying it.  

• Nixon fled on foot when officers attempted to detain him; Officer Gedraitis pursued on foot. Nixon ducked behind an abandoned car into an overgrown lot and reemerged.  

• After losing sight momentarily, officers called in a K9 team to search the area for the firearm. They estimated the wait for the K9 might have been 15 to 30 minutes.  

• When the K9 arrived, it alerted in the very area where the officers had seen Nixon duck and jump up. The firearm was recovered in that spot (I.e., in the same area the K9 had alerted)  

• No forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints, DNA) linked Nixon to the firearm; the recovery was based largely on circumstantial evidence and the K9 alert.  

Issues on Appeal & Legal Reasoning

• Constructive possession/sufficiency of evidence
  Nixon contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove he constructively possessed the recovered firearm, pointing to the lack of forensic linkage and possible alternative explanations (someone else might have dropped it). 
  The Commonwealth argued that the combination of officer observations (seeing the firearm grip), flight, and the K9 alert in the location Nixon had fled supported a reasonable inference of constructive possession. 
  The Court of Appeals evaluated the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth (the verdict winner) and held that there was enough circumstantial evidence to support a conviction.  

• K9 alert as supporting evidence
  The court accepted that the K9 alert (I.e., the dog indicating human odor or detection in the area) was a proper piece of circumstantial evidence to buttress the inference that the firearm had been there and connected to Nixon’s path of flight.  

• Conclusion & Disposition
  The Superior Court affirmed the Judgment of Sentence. 
  In doing so, the court held that the totality of the circumstances (officer observations, flight, location of recovery, K9 alert) sufficed to uphold the convictions.