Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-1343 Criminal (2)COMMONWEALTH VS. CRAIG ALLEN LEVESQUE AND NOW, this defendant are DENIED. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 96-1343 CRIMINAL CHARGE: DUI AFFIANT: PTL. GREGORY THOMAS IN RE: POSTTRIAL MOTIONS ORDER day of May, 1998, the posttrial motions of the BY THE COURT, William I. Gabig, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Ron Turo, Esquire Assistant Public Defender Hess, J. :rim COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : 96-1343 CRIMINAL : CHARGE: DUI CRAIG ALLEN LEVESQUE : AFFIANT: PTL. GREGORY THOMAS IN RE: POSTTRIAL MOTIONS OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are the posttrial motions of the defendant. In them, he has raised issues concerning the lawfulness of his detention and subsequent arrest and interrogation on a count of driving under the influence. Misperceiving the procedural posture of this case, we previously filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Therein we held that the detention of the defendant by Sgt. Brown, an off-duty police officer who was outside his primary jurisdiction, was not a substantive violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8953, so as to warrant suppression of the evidence in this case. Following our filing of this opinion, counsel for the defendant, appropriately, filed a petition for the extension of time within which to file an order disposing of posttrial motions and has filed a supplemental memorandum limited to the question of whether Sgt. Brown's conduct rose to the level suggesting suppression of the evidence. In support of his contention, the defendant cites the case of Com. v. Merchant, 385 Pa. Super. 264, 560 A.2d 795 (1989). In that case, the on-duty police officer was traveling through a neighboring municipality when he made a traffic stop with no probable cause to believe that an offense had occurred in his primary jurisdiction. The defendant also cites the case of Com. v. McCandless, 538 Pa. 286, 648 A.2d 309 (1994). In that case, again, there was a 96-1343 CRIMINAL traffic stop outside of the officer's jurisdiction where there had been no probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed an offense in the officer's primary jurisdiction. Again, the officer was on duty. In the matter sub judice, the police officer was off duty. He had not traveled into a Cumberland County jurisdiction for the purpose of making a traffic stop or an arrest. It appears that he simply found himself at a convenience store like any of its other customers. While there, he observed an individual who was about to operate a motor vehicle while manifestly under the influence of alcohol. Officer Brown took the defendant's keys and maintained the status quo pending the arrival of the local police department. In Merchant, the Superior Court discussed four cases in which a violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act had been held insufficient to warrant suppression. The Merchant court suppressed the evidence with this comment concerning cases in which evidence was not excluded: Thus, although we read [these four cases] to support the disallowance of suppression where there is a technical violation of the Act and where the police are engaged in conduct contemplated within the Act, but perhaps simply failed to proceed properly, we do not read those cases to compel the same result when the very purpose and spirit of the Act is violated and there is no question of technical compliance with the Act. If there was never a threat of suppression, the law could be made a mockery by willful non-compliance without any adverse consequences. This, we will not allow. 385 Pa. Super. at 274, 560 A.2d at 799-800. 2 96-1343 CRIMINAL We do not believe there was a "willful non-compliance" with the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act in this case. We agree with the defendant that a serious legal issue is presented in this case. Because, however, we believe that Sgt. Brown's conduct was purely innocent and that, under the circumstances, he had no common sense alternative, we give the benefit of any doubt in the matter to the Commonwealth. Defense cites the case of Com. v. Vraim, 47 Cumb. 79 (1998) wherein evidence was suppressed because the defendant had been initially detained by a campus police officer who was outside her jurisdiction. The holding in Vraim was grounded in a violation of the Administrative Code and specifically that provision defining the authority of campus police; namely, the Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, Section 2416, as amended, 71 P.S. 646. In Vraim, Judge Oler made specific reference to the fact that the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act is inapplicable to campus police. Vraim at p. 9, n. 58. With regard to the remaining issues raised posttrial, we rely upon the discussion in our previous but erroneously styled opinion and same is incorporated herein by reference. ORDER d> ~ day of May, 1998, the posttrial motions of the AND NOW, this defendant are DENIED. BY THE COURT. ess, J.