Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1898 criminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WAYNE ALLEN PIPER · 97-1898 CRIMINAL IN RE: DEFENDANT'S SUPPRESSION MOTION ORDER OF THE COURT AND NOW, May 8, 1998, after careful consideration of the briefs, Defendant's suppression motion is denied. By the Court, p.j. Mary Jo Mullen, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Austin Grogan, Esquire Assistant Public Defender Attorney for the Defendant COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WAYNE ALLEN PIPER 97-1898 CRIMINAL IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address Defendant's suppression motion. On September 5, 1997, Wayne Piper ("Defendant") was pulled over by Officer Hockenberry of the Camp Hill Borough Police Department. Defendant was driving a silver Acura which had a dark tinted license plate cover over the tags. Officer Hockenberry stopped Piper because he was unable to read the license plate from a normal distance. The officer cited the defendant under the vehicle code. Upon citing Piper, Officer Hockenberry learned that the defendant did not have a driver's license, the registration plates on the vehicle were registered to a Saab owned by Ayanna Inman, and the defendant had outstanding warrants in Dauphin County. The defendant was then transported to the Harrisburg Police Department. When the defendant was taken into custody, his vehicle was towed to Becker's Service Center where Officer Hockenberry completed an inventory search 97-1898 CRIMINAL of the vehicle. The inventory was completed for two reasons: (1) Camp Hill Police Department requires that a car be inventoried when it has been impounded pursuant to the arrest of the driver and (2) Piper requested that the police inventory the car in order to secure an electronic game located in the car. While taking inventory of the car, Officer Hockenberry observed a multi- colored key chain and an open baby bottle bag in the rear passenger compartment. When Officer Hockenberry looked inside these containers for inventory purposes, he found substances which he believed to be illegal drugs. Upon subsequent tests, these substances were determined to be cocaine and marijuana. The defendant later informed Officer Hockenberry that all of the items in the vehicle, with one exception of an electronic game, belonged to the defendant. Defendant presents in his motion two issues for this Court's review. We deal with each issue separately. First, defendant contends that a police officer is not permitted to lawfully stop a car with a tinted license plate cover. Defendant's contention is incorrect. Pennsylvania law states that "lilt is unlawful to display on any vehicle a registration plate which is so dirty as to prevent the reading of the number or letters thereon at a reasonable distance or is otherwise illegible at a reasonable distance or is 97-1898 CRIMINAL obscured in any manner." 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1332(b) (1977). Officer Hockenberry was unable to read the license plate from a reasonable distance due to the tinted license plate cover obscuring it. Although there are no cases directly dealing with tinted plate covers, we find that Officer Hockenberry was well within the scope of section 1332(b) when he stopped the defendant and cited him for an obstructed license plate. Defendant's second issue is that Officer Hockenberry exceeded the boundaries of a lawful inventory search when the officer searched the zipped key chain and baby bag. We disagree with Defendant. The "United States and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts have recognized that inventory searches constitute a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." Com. v. Woody, 679 A.2d 817, 819 (Pa. Super. 1996). Furthermore, "[t]he purpose of an inventory search is not to uncover criminal evidence. Rather it is designed to safeguard seized items in order to benefit both police and the defendant." Id._~. at 819. In order to guide their officers correctly in this limitation, Camp Hill has written guidance for its officers found in the Camp Hill Borough Police Department Policy for Motor Vehicle Inventories. The policy authorizes police officers to conduct a motor vehicle inventory without a warrant when the motor vehicle has 3 97-1898 CRIMINAL been lawfully seized or impounded pursuant to the arrest of the operator, and when the officer is conducting the inventory within the scope of this policy as an administrative procedure. The policy states that the contents of all seized motor vehicles shall be subject to inventory in all areas of the vehicle in which personal property may be reasonably found. The policy also extends to all closed contains located within the vehicle and requires that these containers be opened and inventoried. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has followed the United States Supreme Court in setting forth the scope of a proper inventory. The Commonwealth must show that the search was in fact an inventory search rather than a search to uncover criminal evidence. Additionally, the hearing judge must examine the scope of the search, whether the items were in plain view, the reasons for and nature of the custody, the anticipated length of the custody, and any other facts which the court deems important in the determination. See Com. v. Anderl, 477 A.2d 1356, 1360 (Pa. Super. 1984). We find that Officer Hockenberry's search was within the permissible scope of an inventory search. Officer Hockenberry was following the procedures of the Camp Hill Borough Police Department when he inventoried the vehicle. We find no evidence that Officer Hockenberry was searching to uncover criminal evidence. 97-1898 CRIMINAL In fact, the defendant asked Officer Hockenberry to inventory the vehicle. Additionally, Officer Hockenberry's search was within a reasonable scope. The purpose behind the inventory was to ensure that the defendant's possessions will remain safe while the defendant is in custody. Furthermore, the items were in plain view and the police custody of the car was proper. Based upon these facts, we find that Officer Hockenberry's search was within the permissible scope of an inventory search.