Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1748-2004 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CP-2I-CR-I748-2004 TREVOR EUGENE VAUGHN IN RE: OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER On Saturday, June 26,2004, the defendant, Trevor Eugene Vaughn, was arrested and subsequently charged with driving under the influence, driving under suspension (DUI related) and leaving the scene of an accident. Following his formal arraignment, he filed an omnibus pretrial motion seeking the suppression of evidence. At a hearing on October 26, 2004, held before the undersigned, the defendant's motion was denied by order. On November 1, 2004, based on a stipulated record, the defendant was found guilty at a nonjury proceeding held before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess. The defendant was eventually sentenced on April 7, 2005, after failing to appear for an earlier proceeding. Post-trial motions were denied and the defendant has appealed. The sole ground for the appeal is that we erred in refusing to suppress evidence and, specifically, in finding that a stop by a Shippensburg University Police Officer outside his jurisdiction was a valid stop. This opinion is filed in support of our earlier order. On the night of June 26, 2004, at approximately 11:40 p.m., the defendant left the Orkeys Bar in Shippensburg Borough and got into his Dodge pick-up truck. Stip. of Facts at 2. As the defendant drove out of the parking lot, two people saw him hit a parked, unattended vehicle. The defendant fled the scene, but witnesses were able to take down the license plate number, color and model of the defendant's truck. The police were notified and CP-2I-C4-I748-2004 a dispatch was sent out for a hit-and-run involving a blue Dodge truck bearing Pennsylvania registration YNX-I972, last seen headed north on Earl Street. Suppression N.T. at II. Shippensburg Police Corporal Jeff Shubert, on duty that night in the Borough heard the dispatch and soon thereafter responded to the scene. Id. at 12. At the same time, Officer Patrick Taylor of the Shippensburg University Police Department was stationed along Earl Street, in the university's jurisdiction, checking for stop sign violations. Taylor heard the hit-and-run dispatch and shortly after spotted a vehicle approaching his position that was the same model and color of the truck described in the dispatch. Taylor watched the defendant make a left turn onto Middle Spring Avenue and enter Shippensburg Township but was unable to confirm the license plate number of the truck, as another car was following closely behind. Suspecting that the truck might be the same vehicle involved in the hit-and-run, Taylor left his jurisdiction and followed the truck. Taylor continued his pursuit as the defendant turned into the parking lot of the Hot Point Inn. Taylor could now see the truck's license plate and immediately contacted Cpl. Shubert to confirm that the truck was indeed the vehicle suspected in the hit-and-run. Taylor asked Shubert how to proceed and Shubert instructed him to stop the defendant and await his arrival. Taylor activated his emergency lights and siren as defendant was leaving the Hot Point Inn's parking lot, but defendant continued to operate his vehicle, driving down the road for as much as 150 yards before finally coming to a stop in Franklin County. Fearing that the defendant was a flight risk, Taylor exited his police cruiser and asked the defendant to turn off the ignition and step to the rear of his vehicle until Cpl. Shubert arrived. Shubert arrived 2 CP-2I-C4-I748-2004 shortly thereafter, observed that the defendant was visibly intoxicated and placed him under arrest. Whether Officer Taylor had the authority to stop the defendant's vehicle is a matter clearly governed by the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act ("MPJA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8953. See 71 P.S. 646. I. Section 8953(a)(3) permits an officer to stop a suspect outside his primary jurisdiction when he "has been requested to aid or assist any ... law enforcement officer or otherwise has probable cause to believe that the other officer is in need of aid or assistance." 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8953(a)(3). In Com. v. Peppers, the Superior Court held that an officer acting in response to a police broadcast was responding to a request for "aid or assistance" as provided for in section 8953(a)(3). Com. v. Peppers, 515 A.2d 971,972 (1986). The facts of Peppers are substantially similar to the facts of this case. An officer on duty in his primary jurisdiction of Swatara Township heard a police radio broadcast describing a vehicle involved in a robbery in the neighboring jurisdiction of Hum me 1st own. After spotting the suspected vehicle, the Swatara officer gave chase, and contacted a Hummelstown officer and informed him that he was following the vehicle. The Swatara officer subsequently stopped the vehicle, and arrested the occupant. The court ruled that under section 8953(a)(3) the officer was authorized to make the arrest, as he was acting in response to a "request for aid." Id. Like the case in Peppers, Officer Taylor heard a radio broadcast-a dispatch- identifying the defendant's vehicle. Suppression N.T. at 20. After spotting the vehicle, Taylor began to follow it, acting in response to the "request for aid" from the dispatch. Id. Furthermore, Taylor received explicit authorization from the primary jurisdiction's officer, 3 CP-2I-C4-I748-2004 Corporal Shubert, who told Taylor to "go ahead and stop the vehicle." Id. at 13. Therefore, Taylor, like the officer in Peppers, was acting in response to a request for "aid or assistance." Although Officer Taylor entered Shippensburg Township and later Franklin County while responding to the "request for aid," nothing in section 8953(a)(3) states that he was not permitted to enter the other jurisdictions. The exception, in contrast to some of the other exceptions contained under 8953(a), has no geographical limitations whatsoever. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed that the MPJA is to be liberally construed, noting that the MPJA is not among the types of statutes which are subject to a strict construction and that liberally construing the statute would promote both the working relationships of neighboring police departments and the public safety of neighboring communities. See Com. v. 0 'Shea, 567 A.2d 1023 (1989); Com. v. Merchant, 595 A.2d 1135 (1991); Com. v. Lehman, 870 A.2d 818 (2005). Section 8953(a)(3), liberally construed, is therefore a grant of authority to act with the full "power and authority" granted by law for the limited role of "aiding and assisting" the requesting officer. The defendant may argue that Taylor's decision to follow the defendant's vehicle before obtaining explicit authorization from Cpl. Shubert violates the terms of the Mutual Aid Agreement between the Borough and University. This agreement requires that any assistance given must be explicitly requested by the mayor, chief of police, or the highest ranking officer on duty. Agreement at 1-2. While Cpl. Shubert was, indeed, the highest ranking officer of his department on duty, Officer Taylor began pursuing the defendant's vehicle before contacting Cpl. Shubert, potentially a violation of the Mutual Aid Agreement. This argument fails to take into account the statutory authority that permits police 4 CP-2I-C4-I748-2004 departments to enter into such agreements. Under the Borough Code, any police department which is a party to a mutual aid agreement retains "all the powers and authorities conferred by law." 53 Pa.C.S.A. 46202(35). Accordingly, the provisions of the Mutual Aid Agreement notwithstanding, the Borough and University police retain all the "powers and authorities" granted by the MPJA. As something of a postscript, we note that, had Officer Taylor not stopped the defendant, it is highly likely that the defendant would have evaded arrest. Taylor would have been left "standing at the border like the posse in a bad western movie, watching powerlessly at the suspect riding slowly away." McKinley v. Com., Dept. of Trans., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 838 A.2d 700, 707 (Pa. 2003, Eaken, l concurring). The MPJA was adopted to prevent such a situation. June ,2005 George E. Hoffer, P.l Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney H. Anthony Adams, Esquire Assistant Public Defender Probation :rlm 5