Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2016 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JASON B. JUMPER 02-2016 CRIMINAL CHARGES: D.U.I. CARELESS DRIVING IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HOFFER, P.J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Before us is the defendanfs Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the form of a Motion to Suppress Evidence. The defendant has raised the following issues: 1 .) The Police Officer lacked probable cause to stop the defendant. 2.) The Police Officer lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant. 3.) The Police Officers involved in the stop and arrest failed to properly read the defendant his Miranda warnings. FINDINGS OF FACT On May 21, 2002, Patrolman James L. Peterson of the North Middleton Township Police Department was parked in a private driveway at 1430 Newville Road. Officer Peterson was in uniform and his patrol car was unmarked. At 1:55 AM Officer Peterson observed a van, operated by the defendant, approach from his right, heading west, and make a left turn onto Dranoel Drive. Peterson was parked approximately 75 feet from Dranoel Drive. largely gravel but is paved at the entrance from Newville Road. signs posted either indicating that this was a private drive Officer Dranoel Drive is There were no or prohibiting trespassers. Officer Peterson saw the van fishtail as it turned onto Dranoel Drive. As it fishtailed, the van came within one foot of hitting a light pole along that road. At this point Officer Peterson followed the defendant up Dranoel Drive. The defendant continued driving up Dranoel Drive to his home, parked the van in his yard, and exited the vehicle. Officer Peterson stopped his patrol car on Dranoel Drive and turned his spotlight on the defendant. The defendant staggered toward the Officer, who was now out of his vehicle. The defendant was shouting at the Officer to get out of his yard. Officer Peterson asked the defendant for identification, but the defendant refused to produce it. Officer Peterson observed that the defendant had blood-shot eyes, his speech was slurred, and his breath carried a strong odor of alcohol. Officer Peterson arrested the defendant for Driving Under the Influence at 2:01 AM. The defendant was taken to the Cumberland County Booking Center, where Central Processing Agent Schaeffer advised him of the charges against him and asked the defendant to submit to a chemical test of breath, blood or urine. The defendant was advised that the Miranda Rights apply only to criminal prosecutions and do not apply to the chemical test procedure. The defendant refused to submit to a breath test. DISCUSSION I. Motion to Suppress Evidence: Lack of Probable Cause to Stop At no time during these events did Officer Peterson turn on his lights or sirens or otherwise indicate that the defendant should pull over or stop. Because the defendant acted of his own volition in stopping his vehicle at his house and was not stopped by Officer Peterson, the defendanfs motion to suppress evidence for lack of probable cause to stop is denied. I1. Motion to Suppress Evidence: Lack of Probable Cause to Arrest The Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731(c) allows a police officer to make a warrantless arrest when the police officer has probable cause to believe that the motorist has violated a provision of that section. The defendant argues that the"articulable and reasonable grounds~' standard is a correct standard to apply as it is interchangeable with the "probable causE' standard required by section 3731(c). The test for determining'~articulable and reasonable grounds~' is whether a reasonable person, in the position of the arresting officer, could have concluded that the motorist was operating a vehicle in violation of section 3731. McCallum v. Commonwealth, 140 Pa. Commw. 317, 592 A.2d 820 (1991). The defendant cites a string of cases that have found probable cause to arrest on charges of Driving Under the Influence and argues that the indices that Officer Peterson relied upon in arresting the defendant fall short of the criteria set out by the cited cases. But none of these cases, either individually or collectively, support the defendants position that Officer Peterson's observations of the defendant fall short of the"reasonable grounds~' standard. The theme in all of the defendants cited cases is that no single tell-tale characteristic exists that signals"reasonable grounds? While blood-shot eyes alone may not be enough, the Officer's observations of defendants blood-shot eyes coupled with slurred speech, the strong odor of alcohol on his breath, his staggering, and his unruly behavior and careless driving are sufficient indices in this case that a reasonable person, in the position of Officer Peterson, could determine that reasonable grounds exist to arrest the defendant for Careless Driving and Driving Under the Influence. III. Motion to Suppress Evidence: Failure of Police to Properly Read defendant his Miranda Warnings The defendant moves that all statements made by defendant, as a result of the alleged violation of his right to remain silent and to an attorney, be suppressed. The defendants statements made at the scene of the arrest will not be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings since a defendant must be in custody in order for Miranda to apply. Commonwealth v. Turner, 772 A.2d 970, 2001 Pa. Super. 79 (Pa. Super. 2001). The defendants words and actions at the booking center, up until the point that he clearly invoked his Miranda rights will also not be suppressed. Officer Shaeffer should have immediately ceased questioning the defendant when the defendant clearly asserted his right to have counsel present during the custodial interrogation. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (1994). But the defendants assertion was not clear until he responded to Agent Schaeffer's warnings at the Cumberland County Processing Center that"[y]ou have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you in a court of lave by saying, "[a]nd I'm using that right? (Booking Center Transcript at 4). All statements made by the defendant after this point will be suppressed. The defendants statements made between the scene of the arrest and his statement that"tm using that right' will be admissible into evidence. In view of the above, we will deny the defendants motion to suppress any evidence or statements made by the defendant as a result of the stop and the arrest. We will grant the defendants motion to suppress all statements obtained after the defendant invoked his Miranda rights. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2003, the defendanfs Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED in part and ADMITTED in part. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. Michael W. Mervine, Esquire For the Commonwealth Marlin L. Markley, Esquire For the Defendant