Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1751 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Vo GUENTHER REITTER, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : · 99-1751 CRIMINAL TERM, BEFORE GUIDO, J_. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~'"~ day of JANUARY, 2000, Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in the following respects: 1) The results of the second breath test administered to the Defendant at 12'14 a.m. on June 19, 1999, are suppressed. 2) Neither Officer Hockenberry nor Booking Agent Gross may testify at trial as to the results of the HGN tests. In all other respects, the relief requested in Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion is DENIED. District Attorney David Hershey, Esquire For the Defendant 'sld By the Ed ''E. Guido, J. COMMONWEALTH go GUENTHER REITTER, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : · 99-1751 CRIMINAL TERM : : IN RE' DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the form of a two count Motion to Suppress Evidence as well as a three count Motion in Limine. An evidentiary hearing was held before this Court on January 3, 2000. At the hearing the parties agreed that the only issues to be addressed are whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for driving under the influence and whether the results of a second breath test should be suppressed.~ Prior to the commencement of the hearing the Defendant filed a memorandum of law in support of his position. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commonwealth was given the opportunity to submit legal authority on the issue of the admissibility of the second breath test. In lieu of submitting such authority, the Commonwealth has indicated that it does not object to the suppression of the results of that test. Therefore, we need only address the validity of the arrest. ~ At the beginning of the hearing Defendant's counsel withdrew Count III of his Motion in Limine. During the course of the hearing Defendant's counsel withdrew Count II of his Motion to Suppress. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commonwealth agreed that neither Officer Hockenberry nor Booking Agent Gross would testify as to the results of the HGN test at trial. This effectively resolved Count I of Defendants' Motion in Limine. 99-1751 CRIMINAL TERM FIN.DINGS O F FA CT At approximately 11'00 p.m. on June 1~, i'-;99, Officer Douglas Hockenberry of the Camp Hill Police Department obsc~'ved the Defendant's vehicle make an illegal right mm on red. He initiated a traffic stop and requested that Defendant provide his license, registration and insurance information. The Defendant produced his license and insurance information but failed to provide the registration. When the officer pointed this out, the Defendant retrieved the registration card from. his glove compartment. Officer Hockenberry testified to several observations which led him to suspect that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. He described the Defendant's movements as "slow and deliberate" as he obtained his registration. He noticed that the Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that he smelled of alcohol. In addition, the Defendant admitted that he had been drinking.~ The officer asked the Defendant to step from the vehicle to perform the standard field sobriety tests. He failed those tests. Among other things, the Defendant had trouble maintaining his balance while standing during the instruction phase of the walk and mm test. In addition, he had trouble counting during the one leg stand test. He also had trouble following instructions during both tests. The officer placed the Defendant under arrest for driving under the influence and transported him to the Central Booking Center for further processing. While at the Central Booking Center the Defendant was advised of the warnings under the implied consent law. He was also advised of his Miranda rights. He submitted to a breath test at 11 '37 p.m. with results of. 102%. The Defendant admitted to drinking three (3) beers. 99-1751 CRIMINAL TERM CONCLUSION OF LAW The officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant. DISCUSSION Probable cause to effectuate an arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the police officer are sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution in believing that the arrestee has committed an offense. ~o~mmonwealth v. Romero, 449 Pa. Super. 194, 673 A.2d 374 (1996). In the instant case, the facts and circumstances known to the officer were more than sufficient to justify the arrest. At the time he placed Defendant under arrest, Officer Hockenberry was aware that: · He had made an illegal fight hand turn on red. His movements were unusually slow and deliberate. He smelled of alcohol. · He had consumed at least three (3) beers. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. · He had trouble following instructions. · He swayed while standing. · He had trouble counting. · He failed the field sobriety tests. Armed with those facts he acted appropriately in arresting the Defendant for driving under the influence. 99-1751 CRIMINAL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5TM, day of JANUARY, 2000, Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in the following respects' 1) The results of the second breath test administered to the Defendant at 12:14 a.m. on June 19, 1999, are suppressed. 2) Neither Officer Hockenberry nor Booking Agent Gross may testify at trial as to the results of the HGN tests. In all other respects, the relief requested in Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion is DENIED. By the Court, /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney's Office David Hershey, Esquire For the Defendant :sld