Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2940-2005 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CP-21-CR-2940-2005 ERIC BRIAN CEJA, JR. IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, 1. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The central question in this case is whether a police officer has probable cause to initiate a traffic stop when a vehicle's license plate light is hanging a foot below the license plate. According to Com. v. Steinmetz, 656 A.2d 527 (Pa.Super. 1995), a police officer may conduct a lawful traffic stop if he or she believes that a car is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code equipment division. The Motor Vehicle Code Equipment Inspection provision regarding the condition and maintenance of license plate lamps provides that the license plate lamps must illuminate the license plate. 67 Pa. Code, Section 175.80. Additionally, 67 Pa. Code 175.66(k) states that the "registration plate light shall make the registration plate visible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear of the vehicle." While the rest of the provisions regarding the maintenance of vehicles and the inspection of vehicles do not address where or how the license plate lamp must be affixed, it is clear that a lamp which does not illuminate the license plate at all cannot be said to comply with the requirement that not only must license plates be illuminated, but that the illumination must be bright enough to make the license plate visible for a distance of fifty feet. CP-21-CR-2940-2005 ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2005, the omnibus pretrial motion of the defendant in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. Office of District Attorney Douglas K. Marsico, Esquire F or the Defendant :rlm 2 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CP-21-CR-2940-2005 ERIC BRIAN CEJA, JR. IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, 1. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2005, the omnibus pretrial motion of the defendant in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. Office of District Attorney Douglas K. Marsico, Esquire F or the Defendant :rlm