HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2395 criminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. 00-2395 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: DUI
ALBERT EUGENE ZEIS
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S SUPPRESSION MOTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, February 28, 2001, the defendant's Motion to Suppress
Evidence is REFUSED and DISMISSED.
By the Court,
Jon Birbeck, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
For the Commonwealth
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Defendant
COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. 00-2395 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: DUI
ALBERT EUGENE ZEIS
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S SUPPRESSION MOTION
OPINION
HOFFER, P.J:
Defendant has been arrested for Driving Under the Influence. He seeks to
suppress evidence gathered by the prosecuting officers. State police officers,
while on routine patrol in Cumberland County, came upon the defendant parked
in his pickup truck along an exit ramp of Interstate 81. It was 1:30 A.M. on
October 3, 2000. The left side wheels of the pickup were on the painted "fog
line" of the Interstate (in violation of either §3351 or §3354 of the Motor Vehicle
Code).
The vehicle lights were lit. The motor was in operation. The defendant
was asleep behind the wheel. The officers awakened the defendant by tapping
on the window with a flashlight. As defendant stirred, he was unaware of his
surroundings. With the window down, defendant said he was heading home, in
response to a question. A strong odor of alcohol came from the car. Defendant
had trouble finding his proper vehicle cards.
Upon getting out of the pickup, defendant staggered and had to steady
himself on the vehicle. When defendant failed all field sobriety tests, he was
placed under arrest.
Defendant claims his "stop" by the police was not proper and that the
evidence should be suppressed. To do so would contradict well established
case law. In fact, there was no "stop" made by the police, but merely an
investigation of a vehicle illegally parked on the highway with its wheels on the
"fog line." This violation gave "probable cause" (indeed, assuming any was
needed to begin with) to make the further investigation which led to a proper DUI
arrest. See Comm. v. Crum, 523 A.2d 799, 362 Pa. Super. 110, 1987. See also
Comm. v. Swartz, 98-0237 Criminal, Cumberland County, affirmed on appeal.
See Comm. v. Leib, 588 A.2d 922,403 Pa. Super. 223, 1991, for a similar factual
situation and the same procedural situation.
2