Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1678-2005 COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN M. NEWCOMER CP-21-CR-1678-2005 IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., October 21, 2005:-- Defendant, Steven M. Newcomer, is charged with driving under the influence.1 He filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on September 29, 2005. The evidence is as follows. On April 8, 2005, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Officer Warren Cornelius of the Camp Hill Borough Police was in a marked patrol car in a residential area of the Borough. He stopped at a stop sign in the southbound lane of South 19th Street at the intersection of Chestnut Street. This is a large four-way intersection in which the streets are offset in that they do not meet at right angles. Officer Cornelius saw a car to his right approaching the intersection eastbound on Chestnut Street. There were no other vehicles in the area. Stop signs control traffic at three of the approaches to the intersection, but not at the eastbound approach on Chestnut Street. The car displayed a right turn signal. Officer Cornelius testified that it stopped in the intersection a few seconds, and then turned right into the southbound lane of 19th Street. Pictures subsequently taken by defendant show his car on Chestnut Street with CP-21-CR-1678-2005 a street sign at the mid-point of the right side of the car. The car is not in the intersection. Defendant testified that the picture shows where he stopped to look at the street sign as he was going to a friend's house because he was not familiar with the area. Officer Cornelius testified that when he saw the car stop for a few seconds it was further past the street sign, and slightly in the intersection. However, at a preliminary hearing he answered the following questions: Q. Was the front of his vehicle beyond the street signs when you observed it stopped? A. Yes. Q. How far beyond the street signs? A. From that photo, probably halfway 'cause his vehicle, the front of it was stopped on South 19th Street. (Emphasis added.) Officer Cornelius followed the car on 19th Street. The car displayed a left turn signal and turned left into a street. The officer activated his patrol car lights, and the car stopped. Defendant maintains that all evidence obtained after Officer Cornelius stopped his car must be suppressed because the stop was illegal. The Commonwealth maintains that Officer Cornelius had probable cause to believe that defendant violated the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S. Section 3353(a), which provides: (a) General rule.-Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to protect the safety of any person or vehicle or in compliance with law of the directions of a police officer or official traffic- control device, no person shall: (1) Stop, stand or park a vehicle: . . . (iii) Within an intersection. (Emphasis added.) 175 Pa.C.S. S 3802(a)(1) and 3802(c). -2- CP-21-CR-1678-2005 Police officers have authority to stop a vehicle whenever they have articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code. See Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 668 A.2d 1113 (Pa. 1995). We find that defendant momentarily stopped where Officer Cornelius said he did at the preliminary hearing. That stop, as reflected in the picture, created no safety hazard nor constituted probable cause to believe that defendant violated Section 3353(a) of the Vehicle Code. Accordingly, there was no legal basis for Officer Cornelius to stop defendant. Therefore, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of October, 2005, the motion of defendant to suppress all evidence obtained after he was stopped, IS GRANTED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee L. Peck, Esquire For the Commonwealth David E. Hershey, Esquire F or Defendant :sal -3- COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN M. NEWCOMER CP-21-CR-1678-2005 IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of October, 2005, the motion of defendant to suppress all evidence obtained after he was stopped, IS GRANTED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee L. Peck, Esquire For the Commonwealth David E. Hershey, Esquire F or Defendant :sal