Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-2604 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DANIELLE RENEE WAGNER 01-2604 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., November 21, 2002:-- Defendant, Danielle Renee Wagner, was charged with a count of driving under the influence.~ She was found guilty, following a bench trial, on August 1, 2002. On August 27, 2002, defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, a fine of $310, and undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for not less than 30 days or more than 23 months. Defendant filed a direct appeal from her judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In that appeal, she makes one averment, that "[t]he court erred in denying her pretrial motion to suppress any evidence gathered as a result of the traffic stop which was unsupported by probable cause." This opinion is filed in support of an order of April 2, 2002, that denied the motion to suppress evidence. We find the following facts. At 2:59 a.m., on October 24, 2001, Officer Warren Cornelious of the Camp Hill Borough Police Department was stopped at a red traffic signal at the intersection of Chestnut Street and 32® Street in the Borough of Camp ~ 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731 (a)(1)(4). 01-2604 CRIMINAL TERM Hill. While at that location, he saw a Volkswagen in the nearby eastbound lane of the 3200 block of Market Street stop at a red traffic signal at Market and 32nd Street. The traffic signal turned green, but the Volkswagen remained stopped. After sixty seconds, which was the sequence of the red light, the traffic signal turned yellow and the Volkswagen proceeded on Market Street through the intersection. After driving a short distance on 32nd Street to Market Street, Officer Cornelious turned right and followed the Volkswagen. Market Street is two lanes with a double yellow line in the middle. In the 2900 block, he saw the vehicle move to the left and straddle the centerline of the street. As the vehicle proceeded from the 2300 block to the 2100 block, the officer saw "jerky movement." At the 2100 block, Officer Cornelious activated the lights on his patrol vehicle and the Volkswagen stopped. A further investigation resulted in Officer Cornelious charging defendant with driving under the influence. Police officers have authority to stop a vehicle whenever they have articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa.C.S. §6308(b). See, Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 668 A.2d 1113 (Pa. 1995). A traffic light is a "traffic-control signal" which is defined in the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S. Section 102 as "a device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternatively directed to stop and permitted to proceed." (Emphasis added.) Section 311 l(a) of the Code provides: Unless otherwise directed by a uniformed police officer or any appropriately attired person authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic, the driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any applicable -2- 01-2604 CRIMINAL TERM official traffic-control device placed or held in accordance with the provisions of this title .... (Emphasis added.) Section 3112(a)(3)(i) of the Code provides: Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop.., and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown .... (Emphasis added.) Section 3353 of the Code provides: (a) Except... in compliance with.., a... official traffic-control device, no person shall: (2) Stand... a vehicle: (iv) Within 30 feet upon the approach of any.., traffic- control signal located at the site of a roadway. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Vehicle Code directs a driver (1) to obey the instructions of a traffic- control signal, (2) to remain standing at a steady red signal "until an indication to proceed is shown," and (3) not to stand a vehicle within 30 feet upon the approach of any traffic-control signal except in compliance with the signal. The defendant's vehicle (1) remained standing for sixty seconds in front of a steady green traffic signal with no vehicles or pedestrians in the intersection or crosswalks,2 and (2) it did not proceed Section 3112(a)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code provides: Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left.., except that vehicular traffic, including vehicles during right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection and adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited. -3- 01-2604 CRIMINAL TERM until the signal turned yellow. 3 Therefore, defendant created a safety hazard that provided Officer Cornelious articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code.4 Accordingly, his stop of defendant's vehicle was legal and the order denying the motion of defendant to suppress evidence was properly entered. (Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michael Mervine, Esquire For the Commonwealth Linda S. Hollinger, Esquire For Defendant :sal 3 Section 3112(a)(2)(i) of the Vehicle Code provides, "Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is hereby warned that the related green indication is being terminated or that the red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter." 4 See Whitmyer, supra, where a suppression order was upheld but the Supreme Court specifically noted that there was no safety hazard in the manner in which the defendant operated his vehicle. -4-