HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2306 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
Ve
BARRY LEE SWARTZ, JR.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-2306 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION
BEFORE GUIDO, J.
AND NOW,
ORDER OF COURT
this /~~ .. day of APRIL, 1999, after hearing,
Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the nature of the Motion
to Suppress Evidence is DENIED.
Edward E. Guido, J.
John Abom, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire
For the Defendant
:sld
COMMONWEALTH
V.
BARRY LEE SWARTZ, JR.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-2306 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION
BEFORE GUIDO, J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion alleging that
there was no basis for the stop of his vehicle. Therefore, he
requested that all evidence obtained after the stop be
suppressed. A hearing on said motion was held before this Court
on April 19, 1999. Pursuant to Pa. Rule of Criminal Procedure
323(i) we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) In the early morning hours of April 19, 1999, Trooper
Housel of the Pennsylvania State Police was on routine patrol
with his partner in a marked police cruiser on Pennsylvania State
Route 34, in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2) They noticed the Defendant's vehicle being operated in
an erratic manner in the vicinity of the intersection of Pine
Road and Pennsylvania State Route 34.
3) They proceeded to follow the vehicle for approximately
one and one-half (1 1/2) miles on a relatively level and straight
stretch of highway. During that time the vehicle veered off the
NO. 98-2306 CRIMINAL TERM
road to the right seven or eight times. On several occasions
nearly one-half of the vehicle crossed the white fog line.
4) The vehicle increased and decreased speed.
5) As the Defendant's vehicle approached the intersection
with Pa. State Route 174 it swerved into the intersection to such
a degree that had another vehicle been at the stop sign a
collision would have occurred.
6) Immediately thereafter the Trooper initiated the stop.
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 the Vehicle code.
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).
4) Since the initial stop was justified, the arrest for
driving under the influence was lawful.
5) The relief requested in Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial
Motion should be denied.
NO. 98-2306 CRIMINAL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 19TH day of APRIL, 1999, after hearing,
Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the nature of a Motion to
Suppress Evidence is DENIED.
By the Court,
/s/ Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, J.
John Abom, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire
For the Defendant
:sld