Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1148 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve NANCY JANE MILEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-1148 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUI DO, J. AND NOW, this ORDER day of DECEMBER, Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial MotiOn in the nature of a motion to suppress is GRANTED. Ail evidence obtained after the stop of Defendant's vehicle is SUPPRESSED. By the Co dward E. J E Guido, Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire For the Commonwealth H. Anthony Adams, Esquire For the Defendant :sld COMMONWEALTH Vo NANCY JANE MILEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-1148 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion alleging that the stop of her vehicle was improper and requesting that all evidence obtained thereafter be suppressed. A hearing on said motion was held before this Court on November 2, 1998. Both parties have filed briefs. Pursuant to Pa. Rule of Crim. Procedure 323(i) we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) On May 22, 1998, at approximately 1:46 a.m. Officer Jeffrey Lingle of the Mid-Cumberland Valley Regional Police Department was on routine patrol in the Borough of Shippensburg. 2) At that time he received a radio call indicating that a vehicle displaying Pa. Registration BNJ-6091 was pulled to the side of the road in the 200 Block of East King Street. The call further indicated that the driver had exited the vehicle, vomited, and got back into the vehicle. 3) The radio call came from a local fire company. However, the officer does not know the identity of the caller. NO. 98-1148 CRIMINAL 4) Within a minute he began to follow the vehicle bearing the registration plate identified in the call. 5) He activated his lights after following the vehicle for only a block and one half. The vehicle continued to travel for another block and one half at which time the officer activated his siren. The vehicle then pulled over. 6) At no time did the officer observe any erratic driving. 7) The vehicle contained four (4) people. The original driver who had exited the vehicle to vomit was not the driver at the time of the stop. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1) The officer did not have articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect that a-violation of the vehicle code had occurred. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308 (b). 2) The stop was improper. Commonwealth v. Whitmeyer., 542 Pa. 543, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) and Commonwealth v. Bowersox, 450 Pa. Super. 176, 675 A.2d 718. (1996). 3) Ail evidence obtained after the stop must be suppressed. DISCUSSION When an officer stops a vehicle for investigatory purposes, the vehicle and its occupants are considered seized and the seizure is subject to constitutional restraints. Commonwealth v. Bowersox, supra. A stop of a particular vehicle is unreasonable where there is no outward sign that the vehicle code has been violated. Commonwealth v. Whitmeyer, supra. In order to stop NO. 98-1148 CRIMINAL the vehicle, the police officer must have articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect that a violation of the vehicle code has occurred. 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 6308(b). In the instant case, the only information known to Officer Lingle at the time of the stop was that the vehicle had previously been on the side of the road with one of its occupants vomiting. He did not even know for sure that the operator of the vehicle at the time of the stop was the same person who had vomited along the side of the road. During the time that he followed the vehicle he did not observe any outward signs that the vehicle code was being violated. While he may have had a suspicion that the person throwing up on the side of the road was intoxicated, this suspicion, without more, is not sufficient to justify the stop. Therefore, we have no alternative but to hold that the stop of Defendant's vehicle was inappropriate and that all evidence obtained thereafter must be suppressed. ORDER AND NOW, this 7TH day of DECEMBER, Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the nature of a motion to suppress is GRANTED. Ail evidence obtained after the stop of Defendant's vehicle is SUPPRESSED. By the Court, Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire For the Commonwealth H. Anthony Adams, Esquire For the Defendant :sld /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J.