Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1638 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve ERIC P. WINGER Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1638 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT ' S ONNIBUS PR__~ TRI;~?. MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this ORDER day of FEBRUARY, 1998, after hearing on Defendant's Omnibus Pre Trial Motion, his request to suppress post arrest statements and the blood test is DENIED. District Attorney By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Paul B. Orr, Esquire For the Defendant :sld COMMONWEALTH Vo ERIC P. WINGER Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1638 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRE TRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The Defendant filed an Omnibus Pre Trial Motion alleging that his arrest was illegal and requesting that all evidence obtained thereafter be suppressed. A hearing on said motion was held before this Court on February 18, 1998. At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that the only issue to be decided by the Court is whether or not the police officer's initial stop of the Defendant's vehicle was appropriate. If it was, Defendant concedes that his subsequent arrest for DUI was lawful and that his request to suppress evidence must fail. On the other hand, if the initial stop was not appropriate, the subsequent arrest was unlawful and the evidence should be suppressed. Pursuant to Pa. Rule of Criminal Procedure 323[i] the Court makes the following findings or fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACTS (1) Carlisle Police Officer David Tilden was in a marked patrol vehicle in the Borough of Carlisle on April 26, 1997. (2) At approximately 7:50 p.m. he was approached by a motorist, Petra Dieffenbach, who advised him that she had just seen the Defendant's vehicle strike a parked car and leave the scene. NO. 97-1638 CRIMINAL TERM (3) The Officer could see the Defendant's vehicle at the time it was pointed out to him. (4) The Officer followed the Defendant's vehicle for several blocks without activating his lights or attempting to pull it over. He did not notice any unsafe driving by the Defendant during this time. (5) At one point, he briefly lost sight of the vehicle when it turned into an alley. However, he did see the vehicle turn into the alley, and he followed it. (6) Defendant's vehicle could not get through the alley because a car was stopped at the other end. (7) The Defendant put his vehicle in reverse and backed into the Officer's patrol car. The impact was very light. (8) The vehicle blocking the alley began moving while the Defendant was in reverse. (9) The Defendant then proceeded to go forward to leave the alley. (10) At this point, the Officer activated his emergency lights and eventually effectuated the stop. (11) The motorist, Petra Dieffenbach, showed up at the scene and identified the vehicle as the one that had hit the parked car. (12) The Officer eventually examined the parked car [after the stop was done and Defendant had already been arrested for DUI] and noticed a small mark on the vehicle. A note was left for the owner to call the police if he wanted to pursue this matter, but NO. 97-1638 CRIMINAL TERM the owner never did contact the Police. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1) At the very least, the Officer had grounds to effectuate an investigative stop of Defendant's vehicle. Commonwealth v. .Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 662 A.2d 1043(1995) and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.CT. 1868 (1968). (2) The Officer had articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect that Defendant had violated Section 3745 of the Vehicle Code [Accidents involving damage to unattended vehicles or property]. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3745. (3). The Officer had authority to stop Defendant's vehicle to secure information pursuant to Section 6308 of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308[b]. See also ..Commonwealth v. Pollock, 606 A.2d 500, 414 Pa. Super 66 (1992) and Commonwealth v. Triplett, 564 A.2d 227 387 Pa. Super 378 (1989). (4) Since the initial stop was justified, the arrest for driving under the influence was lawful. (5) The relief in Defendant's Omnibus Pre Trial Motion should be denied. ,~.~ ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of FEBRUARY, 1998, after hearing on Defendant's Omnibus Pre Trial Motion, his request to suppress post arrest statements and the blood test is DENIED. District Attorney By the Court, Paul B. Orr, Esquire For the Defendant Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J.