HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-0000135-2009
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CP-21-SA-0135-2009
:
:
GLEN M. FALLIN :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
On October 8, 2009, the defendant was found guilty of speeding and specifically of
traveling forty (40) miles per hour in a twenty-five (25) mile-per-hour zone. He has appealed,
raising one issue with respect to the merits of the conviction:
The Commonwealth failed to controvert
Defendant’s testimony indicating that the
ENRADD timing device that was the exclusive
source of the evidence presented against Defendant
was placed within 500 feet of a sign indicating a
decrease in the applicable speed limit, in violation
of Pa.C.S. § 3368(e).
During the evening of January 23, 2009, the date of the instant offense, Officer Robert
Ressler of the West Shore Regional Police Department was operating an ENRADD speed timing
device in the 100 block of Market Street in the borough of Lemoyne. According to the police
officer, the posted speed limit on that section of Market Street is twenty-five miles per hour.
According to the defendant, whose testimony on this issue we find credible, he had turned onto
Market Street from Third Street in Lemoyne. He agreed that the posted speed limit on Market
Street was twenty-five miles per hour but observed that the only sign he passed was less than 200
feet from the area where his speed was timed.
We agree with the defendant that the ENRADD timing device cannot be used less than
500 feet from a sign indicating a decrease in the applicable speed limit. The Motor Vehicle Code
notes specifically:
CP-21-SA-0135-2009
Distance requirements for use of
(e)
mechanical, electrical and electronic devices. –
Mechanical, electrical or electronic devices may
not be used to time the rate of speed of vehicles
within 500 feet after a speed limit sign indicating a
decrease of speed.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3368(e).
We disagree with the defendant, however, that there is any evidence in this case that the device
was used in violation of this distance limitation. The defendant argues, essentially, that because
he turned from one roadway onto another and, therefore, of necessity observed a speed sign less
than 500 feet from where he was timed that the use of ENRADD device in that location was
unlawful. We do not believe that the statute is susceptible to this interpretation. Testimony in
the case was that the speed limit on Market Street was twenty-five miles per hour. There is
simply no evidence that the ENRADD device was used within 500 feet “after a speed limit sign
indicating a decrease of speed.”
In his other statement of matters complained of on appeal, the defendant contends that we
erred in imposing the statutorily mandated fines and fees as part of his sentence. He contends
that we are estopped from doing so because of our prior grant of his in forma pauperis petition
allowing him to proceed with his appeal without the payment of a filing fee. Not surprisingly,
the defendant cites no authority for this argument.
February 2, 2010 _______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
2
CP-21-SA-0135-2009
H. Anthony Adams, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Glen M. Fallin, Pro Se
445 Marion Road
York, PA 17406
:rlm
3