HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1553 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
V.
JEREMY LEE GIBBONS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2001-1553 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., April 2, 2002
On June 5, 2001, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence~ and
driving under suspension.2 On October 29, 2001, he filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion in
which he questioned the lawfulness of the stop leading to his arrest. After an evidentiary
hearing, we denied the motion. Immediately thereafter, the parties stipulated to the facts
and we found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant has filed this timely appeal
from our sentencing order. The only issued raised on appeal is the propriety of the stop
leading to defendant's arrest.
At about 1:00 a.m. on June 5, 2001, Corporal Wolfe of the Shippensburg Borough
Police was on routine patrol in a marked patrol vehicle. His attention was drawn to the
defendant's vehicle when he heard a loud noise. He then saw the vehicle, 150 to 200
yards away, with something hanging from the front and dragging on the roadway.
3
Feeling that a safety hazard existed, he initiated a traffic stop.
~ 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1)(4).
: 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1543(a).
3 At the time he initiated the stop, Corporal Wolfe had no idea what part of the vehicle was actually
dragging on the roadway. Nor could he tell whether it was metal or plastic.
NO. 2001-1553 CRIMINAL
The corporal testified that he stopped the vehicle to investigate a possible
violation of Section 4107 of the Vehicle Code.4 Pursuant to that section, it is unlawful to
operate a vehicle "in an unsafe condition or in violation of department regulations.''5 In
his opinion, not only was the vehicle in an unsafe condition, it was also in violation of
department regulations which prohibit "loose or dislocated parts protruding from the
vehicle.''6
Based upon the above, we were satisfied that the corporal had reasonable and
articulable grounds to believe that defendant was in violation of the Vehicle Code.
Commonwealth v. Gleason, __ Pa. __~ 785 A.2d 983 (Pa. 2001). Therefore, we
denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained after the stop.
DATE:
Edward E. Guido, J.
Michelle Sibert, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
H. Anthony Adams, Esquire
For the Defendant
:sld
4 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 4107.
s 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 4107(b)(2).
6 67 Pa. Code § 175.77.