Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1552-2003COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, :PENNSYLVANIA C P-21 -C R- 1552-2003 JOSHUA DAVID RHODES OTN: L146129-4 :CHARGE: :AFFIANT: DUI PTL. ROBERT RESSLER IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SUPPRESS November 4, 2003. was denied. OPINION Hoffer, P.J.: This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Omnibus Motion in which he argues that certain evidence should be suppressed because it was obtained as a result of an illegal traffic stop. A suppression hearing was held on For reasons set forth in this opinion, Defendant's Motion STATEMENT OF FACTS On February 9, 2003, Officer Ressler of the West Shore Regional Police observed the Defendant's vehicle traveling westbound on Market St. in Lemoyne around 2:45 a.m. (N.T. 4, Omnibus Hearing, November 4, 2003 (hereinafter N.T. .)) When the Defendant began swerving between two westbound lanes, Officer Ressler proceeded to follow him. (Id.) He watched the Defendant as he drifted to the right, nearly striking a legally parked car. (N.T. 6.) The Defendant swerved sharply to the left at the last possible moment to avoid it. (Id.) Approximately three blocks later, he observed the Defendant's vehicle cross into the eastbound lane and straddle the double yellow line for about one-half block. (N.T. 6-7.) He observed the Defendant continuously weaving between the westbound lanes for about ten more blocks, until he activated his emergency lights and stopped him. (N.T. 7-8.) While talking to the Defendant, it became apparent to Officer Ressler that he was intoxicated and incapable of safe driving. (Affadavit of Probable Cause.) He was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. (Id.) At the booking center, the Defendant requested a chemical breath test which revealed a blood alcohol content of. 154%. (Id.) DISCUSSION The Vehicle Code allows police officers to stop a vehicle if they have articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308(b) (2004). An officer must be able to articulate specific facts possessed by him which would provide probable cause to justify the stop. Commonwealth v. Batta.qlia, 802 A.2d 652,656 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). Furthermore, a vehicle stop is unreasonable when there is no outward sign of a Vehicle Code violation. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 668 A.2d 1113, 1116 (Pa. 1995). In the instant case, because Officer Ressler personally observed a violation of the Vehicle Code in addition to the Defendant's erratic driving, he had probable cause to suspect a DUI. The Defendant argues that Officer Ressler lacked probable cause for the traffic stop which revealed his intoxication. He relies on Commonwealth v. Gleason, 785 A.2d 983 (Pa. 2001), and Commonwealth v. Batta.qlia, 802 A.2d 2 652 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), for this assertion. However, the Defendant's reliance on these cases is misplaced. The court in Gleason held that the police lacked probable cause for a traffic stop when the officer observed the defendant swerve across a fog line~ two or three times over a distance of one quarter mile. 785 A.2d at 985. The court reasoned that because there were no specific facts, beyond the fog line crossing, to indicate a violation of the Vehicle Code, the stop was invalid. Id. at 988. It also noted that given the momentary nature of the defendant's vehicle crossing the fog line and the fact that there was no other traffic on the road, there was no safety hazard to justify a stop on suspicion of a violation. Id. at 985. The court in Battaqlia held that the officer lacked probable cause to stop a vehicle on suspicion of DUI when he observed it weaving within its own lane of traffic without crossing any lines. 802 A.2d at 654. vehicle after he observed it making a wide left turn. The officer stopped the Id. The court reasoned that such undisciplined driving by itself was not a Vehicle Code violation and did not give any specific facts to lead the police to suspect a violation. Id. at 657. The instant case is more similar to Commonwealth v. Lindblom, 2004 WL 1560514 (Pa. Super. Ct.). In Lindblom, the court held the police had probable cause for a stop when a private citizen observed the defendant's erratic driving and watched the vehicle cross over the double yellow lines several times and reported these occurrences to the police. Id~ at *3. In balancing the interest of ~ Refers to the solid white line along the right edge of the road. the government in enforcing highway rules for public safety with the privacy interests of individuals, the court noted that a motorist may be stopped for reckless driving even if it is solely for his own safety, as in this case. Id; See also Commonwealth v. Slonaker, 795 A.2d 397, 401 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (upholding a traffic stop as based on probable cause when the officer followed the appellant's vehicle for five miles and observed the vehicle fully cross the fog line several times and weave numerous times over the double yellow line.) Unlike the officers in Gleason and Batta.qlia, Officer Ressler actually observed a violation of the Vehicle Code when the Defendant crossed the double yellow line and drove halfway in the opposite lane. (N.T. 6-7); See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3307 (2004)2. While erratic driving is not a per se violation of the Vehicle Code, driving on the wrong side of the road is a violation and it creates a safety hazard for the driver. Id. This violation, especially when combined with the weaving within its own lane and the drifting off the road, is a specific fact that gave rise to the probable cause to stop the Defendant on suspicion of a DUI. 2 Section (b) states that "no driver shall at any time drive on the left side of the roadway within the no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark a no-passing zone throughout its length." 4