HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0342-2007
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CP-21-CR-0342-2007
:
:
KEVIN LEE FAUST :
IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION IN THE NATURE OF
A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence alleging an unlawful
traffic stop. During the early morning hours of Tuesday, December 12, 2006, the defendant,
Kevin Lee Faust, was driving northbound on Pennsylvania Route 696 in Shippensburg
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State Trooper John Witkowski
witnessed Faust flash his high beams a few times as he drove within 300 feet of the rear of
another vehicle. There were no vehicles approaching from the opposite direction and the
defendant’s driving behavior did not create a safety hazard to other motorists. Trooper
Witkowski initiated the traffic stop by activating the emergency lights and siren of his police
cruiser. As a result of the traffic stop, evidence was obtained from the defendant that provided
the basis for the criminal charges of driving under the influence.
The threshold for initiating a traffic stop was reduced from a probable cause standard to
the less stringent reasonable suspicion standard with the enactment of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 6308(b).
Pursuant to Section 6308, a police officer may initiate a traffic stop “whenever … [he] has
reasonable suspicion that a violation of this title is occurring or has occurred.” 75 Pa. C.S.A. §
6308(b).
CP-21-CR-0342-2007
Faust used his high beams when he repeatedly flashed his lights in an apparent effort to
warn the other vehicle of the police officer’s presence. See Commonwealth v. Beachey, 698
A.2d 1325, 1326 (Pa. Super. 1997). The Superior Court stated that “by flashing his high beams
on and off, [the defendant] clearly ‘made use of’ his high beams, ‘availed himself’ of his high
beams, and ‘employed’ his high beams each time he ‘flashed’ them.” Id. In Beachey, the police
officer witnessed the defendant flash his high beams within 50 feet of oncoming vehicles in an
effort to warn them of a police radar unit. Id. The court noted that although the flashing of one’s
high beams to warn an oncoming car of danger or to alert another driver that it is safe to pass is a
benign act, “the Motor Vehicle Code makes no exceptions in establishing the violation.” Id.
Although the Supreme Court later reversed the conviction, they did so on other grounds.
The Court stated that 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 4306(b), when read in conjunction with 75 Pa. C.S.A. §
4302, only applies to motorists between sunset and sunrise. Commonwealth v. Beachey, 728
A.2d 912 (Pa. 1999). The Court reasoned that if the statutes are not read in conjunction,
motorists would be in violation if they used their high beams during daylight hours. Id. at 913.
The Court reversed the conviction because the defendant made use of his high beams during
daylight hours, a situation to which the statute was never intended to apply. The Court did not
disturb the Superior Court’s conclusion that usage occurs when an individual flashes his high
beams.
In the instant case, Trooper Witkowski witnessed Faust flash his high beams multiple
times while driving behind another car that was within approximately 300 feet of his car.
According to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 4306(b), “[w]henever the driver of a vehicle approaches another
vehicle from the rear within 300 feet, the driver shall use the low beam of light.” Therefore,
2
CP-21-CR-0342-2007
when Trooper Witkowski saw Faust flash his high beams multiple times while within 300 feet of
the front of another vehicle between sunset and sunrise, he possessed reasonable suspicion to
believe that the defendant violated the Vehicle Code.
ORDER
th
AND NOW, this 27 day of July, 2007, the omnibus pretrial motion of the defendant in
the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Michelle Sibert, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Sally J. Winder, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
3
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CP-21-CR-0342-2007
:
:
KEVIN LEE FAUST :
IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION IN THE NATURE OF
A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
ORDER
th
AND NOW, this 27 day of July, 2007, the omnibus pretrial motion of the defendant in
the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Michelle Sibert, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Sally J. Winder, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm