HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2258-2004
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JOHN ROBERT PEARSON
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2258 - 2004
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., June
,2005
After a bench trial before the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, the defendant was
convicted of driving under the influence, general impairment1 and driving under
suspension, DUI related? He has raised several issues in this timely appeal. In his
concise statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, defendant has articulated the
only issue involving this Court as follows:
Whether the suppression court erred when it ruled that Patrolman Ressler
had probable cause to stop the defendant John Robert Pearson for
following too closely, a violation of S 3310 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle
Code.3
On January 14,2005, we held an evidentiary hearing in connection with
defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Patrolman Robert Ressler of the West Shore
Regional Police Department testified for the Commonwealth. At about 2:30 a.m. on July
4,2004 he observed the defendant's vehicle following a motorcycle "extremely close.,,4
The officer estimated that only" 1 0 feet or less" separated the rear tire of the motorcycle
from the front of defendant's car. 5 If the motorcycle had stopped unexpectedly, the
1 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3802(a)(2)
275 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 1543 (b) (1.1) (i).
3 The other issues involve alleged error by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley.
4 Suppression Hearing Transcript, p. 4, 5.
5 Suppression Hearing Transcript, p. 5.
CP-21-CRIMINAL 2258 - 2004
defendant would not have been able to stop short of colliding with it. 6 After about four or
five blocks, the motorcycle driver pulled off the road to allow the defendant to go around
him.7 At that point, Patrolman Ressler activated his lights to initiate the vehicle stop in
order to cite the defendant for "following too closely" in violation of Section 3310 of the
Vehicle Code.8
Section 3310 of the Vehicle Code provides in relevant part as follows:
The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more
closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of
the vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.
75 Pa. C.S.A. S 3310 (a). We found the testimony of Officer Ressler to be both credible
and persuasive. Based upon that testimony we were satisfied that he had probable cause
to believe that defendant had violated the above section of the Vehicle Code.9 Since we
concluded that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was proper, we denied his motion to
suppress evidence.
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
6 Suppression Hearing Transcript, p. 6.
7 Suppression Hearing Transcript, p. 6.
875 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3310.
9 We note that Judge Bayley found the defendant guilty of violating that section based upon substantially
the same evidence. While the defendant contends that the evidence did not provide the officer with
probable cause to stop him, he has not challenged his conviction.
2