Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1120 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve JOSEPH STANLEY RUDA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 98-1120 CRIMINAL TERM : IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE TRIAL MOTION AND NOW, this BEFORE GUIDO, J. ORDER day of AUGUST, 1998, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED. District Attorney Jeanne' B. Wigbels, Esquire For the Defendant By th ' Edward E. Guido, J. :sld -. ? COMMONWEALTH Ve JOSEPH STANLEY RUDA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : : NO. 98-1120 CRIMINAL TERM : IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE TRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The Defendant filed an omnibus pre trial motion alleging that his arrest for public drunkenness was unlawful. He has requested that we suppress all evidence 'obtained after the arrest. A hearing on said motion was held before this Court on August 25, 1998. This matter is now ready for disposition. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) On April 2, 1998, at about 10:00 p.m. Officer Kurtz of the Carlisle Police Department received a dispatch regarding a suspicious male standing near a dumpster in the northeast corner of the borough. 2) The dumpster is located adjacent to the rear of a local bank on the property of a local apartment complex. However, the nearest apartment building is approximately 200 feet from the dumpster. 3) The dumpster is visible from the street as well as from portions of the apartment complex. 4) The dumpster is adjacent to a path or lane from one public street to another and is located in an area which is open to the public. NO. 98-1120 CRIMINAL TERM 5) Officer Kurtz responded along with other units from the Carlisle Police department and the Pennsylvania State Police. Officer Kurtz was in full uniform. 6) The large police response was occasioned by the fact that a robbery had occurred an hour earlier within two (2) blocks of the dumpster area. The police were still searching for a known suspect who matched the general description of the Defendant. 7) As Officer Kurtz approached the Defendant he recognized him and immediately realized that he was not the suspect in the armed robbery 8) As Officer Kurtz began to speak to the Defendant, he noticed an odor of alcohol. He also noticed that Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. 9) The Defendant appeared to be drunk. He was disoriented as to where he was. He gave confused and inconsistent stories as to why he was there and what he was doing. 10) The Defendant was not appropriately dressed for the cold weather. 11) The officer offered to transport the Defendant to warmth and safety. Since he was concerned for the Defendant's well being, the officer also made several offers to call someone to come get him. 12) The Defendant became loud and uncooperative. 13) The officer warned him several times that if he did not ~The Defendant had no connection to the prior robbery. NO. 98-1120 CRIMINAL TERM cooperate, he would be placed under arrest for public drunkenness so that he could be transported to the police station until he was sober. 14) Since the Defendant refused to cooperate, he was placed under arrest for his own protection. DISCUSSION Section 5505 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S.A. 5505) provides as follows: 5505 Public drunkenness A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity. Defendant argues that his arrest under that section was unlawful for the following reasons: 1) Since the officer knew that he was not the suspect of an armed robbery, he had no reason to approach him. 2) His actions and condition did not give the officer probable cause to believe that he was "manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons...". 3) He was on private property not in a public place at the time of the arrest. We will address the Defendant's arguments seriatim. In the first instance, the officer was totally justified in approaching the Defendant to request information, even if he was not the suspected armed robber. The initial contact was a mere encounter which need not have been supported by any level of suspicion. Com. v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 662 A.2d 1043 (1995). The probable cause to arrest arose out of the initial NO. 98-1120 CRIMINAL TERM encounter from facts and circumstances that were readily apparent to the officer. Defendant had an odor of alcohol about him. He was inappropriately dressed for the weather and he was confused. When the officer attempted help Defendant get to warmth and safety, he became argumentative and loud. The Defendant was obviously intoxicated and the officer was obviously concerned that Defendant was a danger to himself. Under these circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe that the Defendant had committed the crime of public drunkenness.2 Therefore the arrest was authorized.3 Finally, the Defendant cites the case of Com. v. Meyer, 288 Pa. Super. 61, 431 A.2d 287 (1981), for the proposition that the offense of public drunkenness cannot be committed on private property. Since he was on private property, he argues, he could not have committed the crime. Therefore, his arrest could not have been lawful. This reasoning fails for the simple reason that Meyer does not stand for the proposition that public drunkenness cannot be committed on private property. It merely stands for the proposition that the offense must be committed in 2Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer are sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution to believe the suspect has committed an offense. Com. v. Vinson, 361 Pa. Super. 526, 522 A.2d 1155 (1987). 3Pa. Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(d) allows an officer to make an arrest in a summary offense if it is specifically authorized by law. An arrest for public drunkenness is specifically authorized by law. See Com. v. Newfer, 264 Pa. Super. 553, 560, 400 A.2d 596, 599-600 (1979). NO. 98-1120 CRIMINAL TERM a public place. The Meyer Court went on to define "public place" as "any place to which the public or any substantial group thereof has access." 288 Pa. Super. at 63. We specifically find that the area around the dumpster where Officer Kurtz encountered the Defendant was a "public place" within the meaning of the statute. This finding is supported by the Superior Court's decision in Com. v. Canning, 402 Pa. Super. 438, 587 A.2d 330 (1991), which is factually similar to the case before us. In view of the above, we find that the Defendant's arrest for public drunkenness was lawful. Therefore, his motion to suppress all evidence obtained after his arrest must be denied. AND NOW, this ORDER day of AUGUST, 1998, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED. By the Court, /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Jeanne' B. Wigbels, Esquire For the Defendant :sld