Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmiller.mm COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-SA-0194-2009 : : SHANE RAINIER MILLER : IN RE: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY BEFORE HESS, J. MEMORANDUM AND VERDICT In this case, the defendant is charged with abandonment of vehicles, a violation of Section 3712 of the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 P.S. 3712(b). That statute provides that no person “shall abandon a vehicle upon any public or private property without the express or complied consent of the owner or person in lawful possession of the property.” After hearing, we are constrained to find the defendant not guilty and feel it appropriate to offer a word of explanation. In this case, the defendant’s vehicle was towed from the scene of an accident. The defendant was aware that his vehicle was being towed and had several discussions with the tower thereafter. The defendant had a signed title to the vehicle evidencing his ownership but, unfortunately, had not processed the title. PennDOT records continued to reflect that the vehicle was owned by someone else. The defendant attempted to explain this situation on more than one occasion but the tow operator refused to surrender the vehicle. In the meantime, his nondriveable 2000 Chrysler was being stored to the tune of $40.00 per day. Approximately two months after the accident, the defendant was contacted by the police but made no further efforts to retrieve his vehicle. The prosecuting officer thereafter filed a citation alleging that the defendant “did abandon his car on private property after a crash.” CP-21-SA-0194-2009 We have been unsuccessful in finding any Pennsylvania appellate cases which construe this statute in light of facts similar to this case. Nonetheless, we do not believe that 75 P.S. 3712 contemplates the situation presented here. Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary describes “abandon” as, among other things, “to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in.” It is true, at some point, that the defendant evidently concluded that retrieving his vehicle was an exercise in futility. When he gave up his car, initially, however, it is clear that he had every intention of claiming his “right or interest” in the vehicle. Admittedly, he was unsuccessful. In the meantime, the vehicle was on the storage lot with the consent of the tower, who had, in fact, brought it there. The Commonwealth would suggest that once a motorist allows his vehicle to be towed and, thereafter, makes ineffective efforts to retrieve it, he has “abandoned” the vehicle. We cannot agree with this construction of the statute. In fact, other sections of the Vehicle Code in pari materia would suggest otherwise. 75 P.S. 3352 authorizes the removal of a motor vehicle by the direction of the police where the person in charge of the vehicle is unable to provide for the removal of it. In a separate section, it describes the scenario where the vehicle has been “abandoned.” The section dealing with abandoned vehicles requires that the identity of the owner be ascertained from the registration plate of the vehicle, presupposing that the owner may be unknown. Several provisions of Chapter 73 of the Motor Vehicle Code deal with the towing and storage of vehicles and remedies that pertain where vehicles are unclaimed. These provisions provide for the payment of storage fees and also provide the authorization for the disposal of unclaimed vehicles. Reading these provisions together, we are satisfied that there is a difference 2 CP-21-SA-0194-2009 between the abandonment of a vehicle in the first instance and the scenario where a vehicle is towed and is subsequently unclaimed. The former would be a violation of 75 P.S. 3712; the latter would not. VERDICT th AND NOW, this 27 day of October, 2009, after hearing, we find the defendant NOT GUILTY. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Matthew Smith, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Shane Rainier Miller, Pro Se 225 W. Coover Street, Apt. R1 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Stephen Spangler Hampden Township P. D. 230 S. Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 MDJ Thomas Placey 104 S. Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 :rlm 3 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-SA-0194-2009 : : SHANE RAINIER MILLER : IN RE: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY BEFORE HESS, J. VERDICT th AND NOW, this 27 day of October, 2009, after hearing, we find the defendant NOT GUILTY. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Matthew Smith, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Shane Rainier Miller, Pro Se 225 W. Coover Street, Apt. R1 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Stephen Spangler Hampden Township P. D. 230 S. Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 MDJ Thomas Placey 104 S. Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 :rlm