Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0443-2003COMMONWEALTH V. MICHAEL EDWARD WILBERT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0443 - 2003 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., April ,2004 The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence~ and driving under suspension.2 Sentence was imposed on February 3, 2004.3 This timely appeal followed. The only issue raised on appeal involves our refusal to grant his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On September 9, 2003, we held an evidentiary hearing in connection with the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence. The only matter at issue was the appropriateness of the vehicle stop.4 We will summarize the facts adduced from the evidence presented at that hearing. On October 7, 2002, Officer Mullen of the Middlesex Township Police Department was on routine patrol. At about 2:35 a.m. she was traveling northbound on Spring Road when she encountered the defendant's vehicle in the southbound lane.5 She noticed that "the headlights were weaving constantly back and forth.''6 Since they were ~ 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1) and (a)(4). : 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1543(a). s Defendant was sentenced to pay fines and to undergo imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 23 months on the driving under the influence charge. (It was a second offense for sentencing purposes). He was sentenced to pay a fine in connection with the driving under suspension charge. 4 Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 3. s Spring Road is a two lane roadway. 6 Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 5. CP-2 I-CRIMINAL 0443 - 2003 traveling on a straight stretch of the roadway, she was able to observe the defendant's vehicle weaving for about one quarter of a mile.7 It was also traveling fast, "crossing a great period of distance in a short period of time.''8 As soon as the vehicle passed her, Officer Mullen turned around to pursue it.9 She eventually caught up to it and again noticed the weaving, l0 The vehicle weaved from the white line to the yellow line and crossed into the northbound lane as it went over the crest of a hill. ~ The officer also noticed that the registration plate was so damaged that some of the characters were illegible. ~2 After following the vehicle for about a mile, Officer Mullen initiated the traffic stop at issue. ~3 DISCUSSION The standard necessary for a proper vehicle stop was articulated by the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. I4Zhitmeyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) and reiterated in Commonwealth v. G/eason, 567 Pa. 111,785 A.2d 983, (200) as follows: If the alleged basis of a vehicular stop is to permit a determination whether there has been compliance with the Motor Vehicle code of this Commonwealth, it is incumbent [sic] upon the officer to articulate specific facts possessed by him, at the time of the questioned stop, which wouM provide probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the driver was in violation of some provision oft he Code. I4Zhitmeyer, 668 A.2d at 1116, citing Swanger, 307 A.2d at 879 (emphasis added). 785 A.2d at 989. The determination of whether a stop is proper depends upon the facts of each case. As the G/eason Court stated: Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, pp. 5-7. Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 6. Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 7. l0 Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 10. ~ Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 10. ~2 Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 13. ~ Transcript of Proceedings, September 9, 2003, p. 13. CP-2 I-CRIMINAL 0443 - 2003 "a stop of a single vehicle is unreasonable where there is no outward sign the vehicle or the operator are in violation of the Vehicle Code... Before the government may single out one automobile to stop, there must be specific facts justifying this intrusion." Commonwealth v. Swanger, [453 Pa. 107,] 307 A.2d at 878 .... The legislature has vested police officers with the authority to stop vehicles whenever they have "articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation" of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa. C.S. {} 6308(b). Whitmeyer, 668 A.2d at 1116-17. Commonwealth v. G/eason, 785 A.2d at 989, (emphasis added). Applying the above standard to the case at bar, we were satisfied that specific facts existed to justify the intrusion. At the very least, the illegible registration plate on the defendant's vehicle provided Officer Mullen with articulable and reasonable grounds to stop the vehicle for a suspected violation of Section 1332(b) of the Vehicle Code. 14 We were also satisfied that the officer had reasonable and articulable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving under the influence in violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code.~5 The officer observed the defendant driving erratically for over 1 4¼ miles, the initial quarter mile as his vehicle approached her and another mile as she followed him. He weaved within his own lane almost constantly, was driving too fast, and crossed into the oncoming lane at the crest of a hill. His driving posed a clear hazard to himself and to the motoring public. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer was justified in stopping the vehicle to investigate a possible driving under the influence infraction. ~4 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1332(b) provides: Obscuring plate.-It is unlawful to display on any vehicle a registration plate which is so dirty as to prevent the reading of the number or letters thereon at a reasonable distance or is otherwise illegible at a reasonable distance or is obscured in any manner. (emphasis added). ~s 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731. We note that the articulated reason for the stop was the officer's belief that the driver might be operating under the influence of alcohol. CP-2 I-CRIMINAL 0443 - 2003 DATE Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Jerry Russo, Esquire For the Defendant Probation CCP Victim Witness :sld