Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2651-2005 COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JUSTON N. WINSTON CP-21-CR-2651-2005 IN RE: BENCH TRIAL OPINION AND VERDICT Bayley, J., April 20, 2006:-- Defendant, Juston N. Winston, is charged with resisting arrest and escape. A bench trial was conducted on April 11, 2006.1 The evidence was as follows. On August 22,2005, at approximately 5:00 a.m., Officer Jeremy Tappan of Upper Allen Township, responded to a dispatch of a "suspicious vehicle" where several males were seen as they "disbursed from the vehicle." Officer Tappan went to the scene, and saw the vehicle. It contained "obvious items" of stolen property. He impounded the vehicle, and had it towed to the Upper Allen Police Station. As he was following the tow truck on the Gettysburg Pike, a car passed going the other way. The car then made an illegal turn, caught up to the police vehicle, moved ahead of it and then moved behind the tow truck. The tow truck made a turn, at which point Officer Tappan saw people in the car pointing toward it. The officer stopped the car for the illegal turn. There were five people inside, one of whom was the registered owner of 1 Defendant waived presence at the announcement of the verdict. CP-21-CR-2651-2005 the impounded vehicle. Officer Tappan, along with other officers who had arrived at the scene, had everybody get out of the car to conduct an investigation regarding the stolen property in the impounded vehicle. All of the occupants were asked to come to the Upper Allen Police Station so the police could pursue the investigation. The defendant then ran, and did not stop upon commands to stop. Officer Piutro Picciurro chased defendant for some distance before catching up to him. Defendant raised his fists as if to fight, and the officer maced him. Defendant ran again until the officer was able to catch and cuff him. The Crimes Code, at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5104, provides: A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance. (Emphasis added.) When defendant ran from the scene of the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger, which action resulted in the chase and Officer Picciurro utilizing substantial force to overcome his resistance, he was not under arrest. He was, however, under investigatory detention. A police officer may conduct an investigatory stop of an individual if the officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot. Commonwealth v. Spears, 743 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. 1999). Once Officer Tappan stopped the car for making an illegal turn on the Gettysburg Pike, and determined that one of the persons -2- CP-21-CR-2651-2005 inside was the registered owner of the impounded vehicle which contained obvious stolen property, and from which males had recently been seen leaving, he had a reasonable belief that criminal activity was afoot by the males in the stopped car. Defendant and the others were under lawful investigative detention as suspects for receiving stolen property. In Commonwealth v. Karl, 328 Pa. Super. 97 (1984), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: An indication of what was contemplated [by the words "discharging any other duty" in Section 5104 of the Crimes Code], is found by turning to Section 242.2 of the Model Penal Code, which S 5104 was modeled after. The Model Penal Code S 242.2 comment 5 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1980), which deals with the physical obstruction of discharge of public duty, states: Section 242.2 covers physical interference in a host of circumstances in which public servants discharge legal duties other than arrest. These include, for example, a policeman executing a search warrant, a fireman putting out a blaze, a forest or agricultural official making required inspections, an election official charged with monitoring balloting, and the like. (Emphasis added). The Commonwealth has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant employed means justifying requiring substantial force to overcome his resistance to a police officer discharging a duty of conducting an investigation while defendant was in lawful detention. Therefore, defendant is guilty of violating Section 5104 of the Crimes Code. The Crimes Code, at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5121(a), provides: Escape.--A person commits an offense if he unlawfully removes himself from official detention or fails to return to official detention following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period. (Emphasis added.) -3- CP-21-CR-2651-2005 Section 5121 (e), provides: Definition.-As used in this section the phrase "official detention" means arrest, detention in any facility for custody of persons under charge or conviction of crime or alleged or found to be delinquent, detention for extradition or deportation, or any other detention for law enforcement purposes; but the phrase does not include supervision of probation or parole, or constraint incidental to release on bail. (Emphasis added. ) In Commonwealth v. Stewart, 436 Pa. Super. 626 (1994), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the phase "any other detention for law enforcement purposes" can extend to a pre-arrest situation. We conclude that an investigative detention constitutes a detention for law enforcement purposes. The Commonwealth has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully removed himself from such investigative detention in violation of Section 5121 (a) of the Crimes Code. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. VERDICT AND NOW, this day of April, 2006, I find defendant GUILTY of violating Section 5104 of the Crimes Code and Section 5121 (a) of the Crimes Code. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee Peck, Esquire -4- CP-21-CR-2651-2005 Assistant District Attorney Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire F or Defendant :sal -5- COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JUSTON N. WINSTON CP-21-CR-2651-2005 IN RE: BENCH TRIAL VERDICT AND NOW, this day of April, 2006, I find defendant GUILTY of violating Section 5104 of the Crimes Code and Section 5121 (a) of the Crimes Code. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee Peck, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire F or Defendant :sal