Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2239 criminalCOMMONWEALTH VS. STEPHEN SEYMORE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-2239 CRIMINAL IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, J,. ORDER AND NO W, this day of June, 1999, the omnibus pretrial motion in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Mary-Jo Mullen, Esquire Assistant District Attorney ~~1~. Hess, J. Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :rlm COMMONWEALTH VS. STEPHEN SEYMORE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-2239 CRIMINAL IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the defendant has filed a motion to suppress evidence questioning the legality of a police stop of his vehicle. On September 12, 1998, a minivan driven by defendant Stephen Seymore was being followed in traffic by Officer Leon Crone of the Lower Allen Police Department. The officer observed the defendant's minivan cross over the double yellow line in the center of the road by more than a tire's width. The minivan then jerked back, and crossed the white fog line, then jerked back again into the minivan's lane of travel. The officer continued to observe the van weave within its lane of travel. According to the officer, the minivan "again crossed the center line, jerked to the outside line, jerked back in and crossed the center and back to the outside again." The officer then pulled the minivan over. As the defendant pulled the minivan to the side of the road, the defendant nearly struck the curb before coming to a stop. The officer, following the stop, observed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol and glazed eyes. The defendant was administered three field sobriety tests, which he failed, and was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. 98-2239 CRIMINAL In Commonwealth v. Whitmeyer, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that investigative traffic stops represent a balance of the state's interest in enforcing regulations for the safety of those who travel its highways and roads, against the privacy of the individual detained. Commonwealth v. Whitmeyer, 542 Pa. 545,551,668 A.2d 1113, 1116 (Pa. 1995). The court went on to state that officers have authority to stop vehicles, pursuant to Section 6308(b) of the Vehicle Code, when they have "articuable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code." Whitmeyer, 542 Pa. at 552, 668 A.2d at 1116. Thus, traffic stops, like Terry_ stops, are investigative rather than custodial detentions. Commonwealth v. Shatzel, 724 A.2d 362, 365 (Pa. Super. 1998). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has observed that "erratic driving is reasonable suspicion for an investigative traffic stop." Commonwealth v. Lymph, 372 Pa. Super. 97, 101, 538 A.2d 1368, 1370 (Pa. Super. 1988). In Lymph, the officer, prior to making the traffic stop, directly observed the defendant's vehicle travel over the center line several times, forcing an oncoming car to swerve. The court found that such driving represented reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving under the influence (DUI) and therefore in violation of the Vehicle Code. Lymph, 372 Pa. Super. at 101,538 A.2d at 1370. In Commonwealth v. Montini, the court held that an officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect that the defendant was DUI after the officer observed the car driven by the defendant cross entirely into the opposite lane simply to avoid a parallel parker, as well as the defendant weaving within his own lane, twice crossing the center line, and accelerating and decelerating abnormally. Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761,763 (Pa. Super. 1998). The court stated 98-2239 CRIMINAL that these were sufficient facts to justify the stop because the officer could have reasonably believed that the defendant was violating the Vehicle Code due to his erratic driving..Id, at 764. The facts of the above cases describe instances of driving erratic enough to provide the officers making the investigative traffic stops with reasonable suspicion. Likewise, the driving by defendant Seymore was similar in that he crossed the center line three times, according to the arresting officer, as well as crossing the white fog line on the left and weaving within his lane of travel. In Commonwealth v. Carlson, the court found that a Wildlife Conservation Officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was DUI based simply on the car being driven by the defendant crossing over the center line one time. Commonwealth v. Carlson, 705 A.2d 468, 471 (Pa. Super. 1998). However, the facts of Carlson are distinguishable from the situation at bar in that Seymore's driving was significantly more erratic than that of the driver in Carlson. In Commonwealth v. Malone, Judge Bayley of this court found that an officer observing the wheels of the vehicle being driven by the defendant going on to the berm one foot and then later crossing over the center line one time did not generate reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Malone, 19 D. & C.4th, 41, 42 (Cumberland 1993). The court found that Section 3309(1) of the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. A. Section 3309(1), "does not.require perfect adherence to driving within a single marked lane on all occasions. It only requires a vehicle be driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane." Id. at 44. However, Malone is likewise distinguishable from the situation at bar. Malone dealt with a stop based on a belief that the defendant was in violation of Section 3309(1), which deals with keeping an auto within one 98-2239 CRIMINAL lane of traffic. The Commonwealth admitted in Malone that the defendant's driving was not erratic, unsafe, or even "weaving." Id. at 43. ORDER AND NOW, this day of June, 1999, the omnibus pretrial motion in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. B Y THE COURT, Mary-Jo Mullen, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Kevi~. J. /- Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :rlm