Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0926 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve CLAUDE JOSEPH SAFNER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-0926 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE TRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this ORDER day of SEPTEMBER, 1998, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED. By th Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire For the Defendant :sld COMMONWEALTH Ve CLAUDE JOSEPH SAFNER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-0926 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE TRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE GUI DO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The Defendant filed an Omnibus Pre Trial Motion alleging that the stop of his motor vehicle was unlawful and requesting that all evidence obtained thereafter be suppressed. A hearing on said motion was held before this Court on August 10, 1998. The parties have agreed that the only issue to be decided is whether the initial stop of the Defendant's vehicle was appropriate. If it was, Defendant concedes that his subsequent arrest was lawful and that his request to suppress evidence must fail. On the other hand, if the initial stop was not appropriate, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence should be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) On May 18, 1998, Trooper Braid of the Pennsylvania State Police received a dispatch indicating that a silver car with Florida license was being operated erratically in the north bound lane of interstate 81. 2) The trooper was advised that there had been several calls to 911 regarding the erratic operation of that particular vehicle. 3) The trooper was advised that the subject vehicle was last NO. 98-0926 CRIMINAL TERM seen just north of exit 11 on interstate 81. 4) He proceeded to exit 12 so that he could intercept the vehicle. 5) While waiting for the vehicle to arrive, the trooper was listening to his CB radio. He overheard chatter among the truckers which indicated that the operator of a silver vehicle with Florida registration was "driving like an idiot." 6) Within minutes of positioning himself at exit 12 the Trooper saw a gray 1987 Honda Prelude with Florida registration. 7) The Trooper pulled the vehicle over to investigate the. cause of the erratic driving.~ DISCUSSION Defendant argues that since the trooper did not actually observe any erratic driving, he had no authority to stop the vehicle. In support of his position he has cited the recent cases of Com. v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 698 A.2d 571 (1997), and Com. v. Martin, Pa. Super. ~, 705 A.2d 887 (1997). For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we are not persuaded by Defendant ' s argument. Both Jackson and Meyer stand for the proposition that where "the underlying source of the police department's information is an anonymous telephone call ... the tip should be treated with ~The trooper admitted that he did not witness any erratic driving. He pulled the vehicle over on the basis of the information he received from his dispatcher as well as the chatter that he had heard on the CB radio. NO. 98-0926 CRIMINAL TERM particular suspicion." Jackson, 548 Pa. 490, 698 A.2d at 573. However, those cases can be distinguished from the case at bar on several grounds. In the first instance, there was only one anonymous source in ..Jackson and Meyer. In the instant case, there were several callers providing the same information to the department. In addition, Trooper Braid independently corroborated the information provided by his dispatcher by monitoring the CB radio chatter in the area. As the Jackson Court noted, an investigative stop "may be made on the basis of an anonymous tip, provided the tip is sufficiently corroborated by independent police work to give rise to a reasonable belief that the tip was correct." Jackson, 548 Pa. 490, 698 A.2d 574° We believe the instant case to be factually similar to, and controlled by, Com. v. Triplett, 387 Pa. Super. 378, 564 A.2d 227 (1989). In Triplett an unidentified man advised the police officer that a vehicle had just been involved in a hit and run accident. Immediately thereafter the officer received a radio dispatch advising him that a hit and run accident had just occurred. The Court held that the stop of the vehicle was authorized under Section 6308 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308(c)). The language of that Section is now contained in Section 6308(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 6308(b)) which provides, in relevant part, as follows: Whenever a police officer ... has articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of this title, he may stop a NO. 98-0926 CRIMINAL TERM vehicle, upon request or signal, for the purpose of checking the vehicle's registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine number or the driver's license, or to secure such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of this title. In the case before us, we are satisfied that the officer had articulable and reasonable ground to believe that any one of several sections of the Vehicle Code may have been violated.2 Therefore, the initial stop of Defendant's vehicle was appropriate. ORDER AND NOW, this ~ /~d day of SEPTEMBER, 1998, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED. By the Court, District Attorney Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire For the Defendant :sld /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. 2A few that immediately come to mind are Careless driving (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714), Driving within a single lane (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309 (1)) , and Turning movements and required signals (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3334).