Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0415 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KlM PATRICK HUGHEY: 02-0415 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., September 11, 2002. In this criminal case in which Defendant is charged with driving under the influence, Defendant has filed an omnibus pretrial motion in the form of a motion to suppress.~ The motion is based upon an alleged violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act.2 A hearing on Defendant's motion was held on August 28, 2002. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the motion to suppress will be granted. STATEMENT OF FACTS On Saturday, December 22, 2001, at about 10:00 p.m., a police officer of the Fairview Township (York County) Police Department was on official business in the adjoining Borough of New Cumberland (Cumberland County).3 He was in an unmarked patrol car and in full uniform.4 While facing east on Front Street, at its intersection with Bridge Street, the Fairview Township officer observed a red maroon vehicle about half a block beyond the next intersection ahead (Front and Market Streets), also facing east.5 ~ Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion, filed May 16, 2002. : Act of June 15, 1982, P.L. 512, §4, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. §8953 (2001). s N.T. 6-7, Suppression Hearing, August 28, 2002 (hereinafter N.T. ~. 4 N.T. 10-11. A street map of this area of New Cumberland will be judicially noticed and is attached to this opinion to facilitate an understanding of the facts. See Goffv. Armbrecht Motor TruckSa/es, Inc., 284 Pa. Super. 544, 548 n.4, 426 A.2d 628, 630 n.4 (1980). 5 See N.T. 8-9, 16. This vehicle was parked to discharge the passenger at his residence,6 and the driver's side door and the passenger's side door were open.7 The male driver and male passenger were standing in their respective doorways,8 and the circumstances suggested to the officer that they might have been urinating, although he could not actually perceive this.9 The officer "didn't notice any other people around,''~° and neither of the men was perceptibly drunk, loud or unruly. ~ The officer proceeded to approach the vehicle. ~2 Defendant, who was the driver of the vehicle, upon realizing that a car was approaching and not wishing to cause offense by being seen urinating, got back into the vehicle and closed the door.~3 The passenger also got back in the vehicle. ~4 Having parked his patrol car behind Defendant's vehicle, the officer walked to the driver's side, identified himself as a Fairview Township police officer, told Defendant to shut off the vehicle and stay in place, and advised him that an officer from the New Cumberland Borough police department was on his way.~5 A New Cumberland Borough police officer subsequently arrived on the scene,~6 and the 6 N.T. 22. 7N.T. 10. 8N.T. 9. 9N.T. 9. l0 N.T. 16. ~ N.T. 15-16. ~2 N.T. 9-10. ~3 N.T. 21. ~4 N.T. 11. ~5 N.T. 11-13, 19-20. The Fairview Township officer had radioed his York County dispatcher to notify the Cumberland County dispatcher that an officer from New Cumberland Borough should be sent to the scene. N.T. 10. 16 N.T. 10-12. 2 detention eventually culminated in Defendant's arrest for driving under the influence by the New Cumberland Borough officer. ~7 At a hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress based on the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, it was the Commonwealth's position that Defendant's act of public urination represented a breach of the peace, and as such permitted an extra-territorial detention by the Fairview Township police officer, la DISCUSSION Statement of Law The Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) General rule.--Any duly employed municipal police officer who is within this Commonwealth, but beyond the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction, shall have the power and authority to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth or otherwise perform the functions of that office as if enforcing those laws or performing those functions within the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction in the following cases: (5) Where the officer is on official business and views an offense, or has probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed, and makes a reasonable effort to identify himself as a police officer and which offense is a felony, misdemeanor, breach of the peace or other act which presents an immediate clear and present danger to persons or property. 42 Pa. C.S. §8953(a). The misdemeanor of indecent exposure is committed when a person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm. Act of December 6, ~7 See Information, filed April 10, 2002. ~8 N.T. 5. 3 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §3127(a)(2001). The misdemeanor of open lewdness is committed when a person does any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §5901 (2001). The act of urinating, however, even in less than the most private circumstances, does not automatically render a person guilty of such offenses. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 296 Pa. Super. 349, 442 A.2d 803 (1982) (indecent exposure). Urinating on a public street may constitute summary disorderly conduct. See Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 59 n.9, 757 A.2d 884, 890 n.9 (2000). However, it is not a form of the offense which can generally be characterized as one that "involves a breach of the peace, [or] endangers property or the safety of any person present." See Commonwealth v. Williams, 390 Pa. Super. 493, 498, 568 A.2d 1281, 1283 (1990) (quoting Commonwealth v. Shillingford, 231 Pa. Super. 407, 411 n.6, 332 A.2d 824 n.6 (1975)). Suppression of evidence is appropriate in the case of a violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351,353- 54 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). Application of Law to Facts In the present case, the Defendant's act of urinating while partially shielded by a door of his vehicle did not represent a felony, misdemeanor, breach of the peace or other act presenting a clear and present danger to persons or property. It therefore was not within the purview of the exception to limitations upon extra- territorial arrest or detention by a municipal police officer provided in Section (a)(5) of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act. For this reason, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the form of a motion to suppress, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and all 4 evidence resulting from the detention of Defendant in New Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by a police officer of Fairview Township, York County, on December 22, 2001, is suppressed. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Geoffrey McInroy, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Robert J. Mulderig, Esq. Attorney for Defendant 5 6 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KlM PATRICK HUGHEY: 02-0415 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the form of a motion to suppress, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and all evidence resulting from the detention of Defendant in New Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by a police officer of Fairview Township, York County, on December 22, 2001, is suppressed. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Geoffrey Mclnroy, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Robert J. Mulderig, Esq. Attorney for Defendant