HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-0748 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. · 00-0748 CRIMINAL
· CHARGE' DUI
BRUCE ALLEN SPENCE · AFFIANT' PTL ROBERT RESS'LE.R '
..
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
In this case, the Commonwealth has appealed from our order suppressing evidence of an
automobile stop. Our order suppressing evidence was entered on June 21, 2000; a timely appeal
followed. The facts adduced at the suppression hearing in this case are as follows.
During the early morning hours of November 14, 1999, Officer Robert Ressler of the
West Shore Regional Police Department found himself following a van which was travelling
westbound on Market Street in the borough of Lemoyne. He first observed it in an area of
highway known as the "bottleneck." He noticed no unusual driving until the van, operated by
the defendant, reached the area of Third and Market Streets. After it traversed the intersection,
the left turn signal of the vehicle was activated. The signal remained activated for a distance
which the officer described as approximately three blocks. The vehicle then approached a Y-
intersection at State Street where it made a left turn. The vehicle then proceeded on the right-
hand portion of the road when it approached a vehicle which was parked at the side of the road.
The van swerved to the left to avoid striking the parked vehicle. The van, however, was at all
times in its lawful lane of travel. After the defendant made the movement to avoid striking the
parked car, the officer activated his emergency lights and the defendant eventually pulled over.
One of the more recent cases from our Supreme Court dealing with traffic stops is
Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545,668 A.2d 1113 (1995). Interestingly enough, that
00-0748 CRIMINAL
case also involved a movement on the part of the motorist which the police officer perceived to
be "erratic." In Whitmyer, the court reiterated the well-established principle that lhe stopping-'of
a vehicle and the detainment of its passengers constitutes a seizure and therefore implicates the
fourth amendment. Id, at 1115. The court then went on to hold that a police o. fficer has authority
to stop a vehicle only if he has articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of th'~
Vehicle Code. In Whitmyer, the defendant had made "an erratic lane change from the ramp onto
the interstate" and then appeared to exceed the speed limit though there was no clock. The
Supreme Court affirmed both the lower court and the Superior Court in the conclusion that the
stop was unlawful.
In this case, the defendant signaled for a left turn which he ultimately made. He then
swerved to avoid a parked car. We fail to discern here any violation of the Vehicle Code and
continue to be satisfied that our order suppressing evidence in this case was proper.
August 18, 2000
Jonathan B irbeck, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Hess, J.
William Braught, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
:rlm