Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1218-2005 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. mSTIN RAY IRVIN NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1218 - 2005 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., April , 2006 On January 3,2006, the defendant was sentenced in connection with his conviction for driving under the influence. He has filed this timely appeal in which he contends that we erred in denying his omnibus pretrial motion challenging 1) the constitutionality of the new driving under the influence lawl and 2) the lawfulness of the vehicle stop leading to his arrest? Constitutional Challenge We decided against the defendant on his constitutional challenge because the matter had already been addressed in this Court. The following exchange between court and counsel is dispositive of this issue: MS. SIBERT: Your Honor, this is Commonwealth vs. Justin Irvin. We're here on Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion, motion to suppress, and declare the new DUI is unconstitutional in that it is vague and overboard. The Commonwealth is ready to proceed. THE COURT: Mr. Tully, the second part of your motion, the unconstitutionality of the law, are there any portions - - or any arguments that you raise that have not already been addressed by Judge Bayley's decision or Judge Hess's decision? MR. TULLY: No, Your Honor. This is obviously to preserve the right - - 175 Pa. C.S.A. ~ _ et seq. 2 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal", paragraph 5. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1218 - 2005 THE COURT: And I'm bound by those decisions, so I'll deny that portion of your motion. MR. TULLY: I fully anticipated that and conveyed to my client in advance.3 The cases referred to are Commonwealth v. Neufeld 54 Cumbo 96 (2005) decided by Judge Bayley and Commonwealth V. Semuta (CP-21-CR-2761-2004) decided by Judge Hess. Copies of each is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Motion to Suppress Evidence We will summarize the facts as we found them to be after hearing the evidence at the suppression hearing. On the early morning of April 23, 2005, Shippensburg University Police Sergeant Scott Bradnick was on duty when he encountered the defendant's vehicle. The sergeant described the initial encounter as follows: Q. Sergeant Bradnick, were you working on April 23rd, 2005, around 1 :30, 1:45 in the morning? A. Yes, I was. Q. Can you tell the Court what you saw? A. As I was traveling Spring Street to King Street, I made a left turn onto King Street. I traveled a very short distance. I noticed something in my lane of travel. Q. Could you tell what it was? A. At this time, no. As I was traveling, it was coming closer to me. I then made out that the vehicle - - that it was a vehicle coming towards me. He was completely in my lane of travel, where I had to go to the far right against the sidewalk. Q. Why couldn't you tell what it was when it was coming toward you? A. There were no lights on the vehicle. Once the vehicle got close enough to me, I noticed heavy front-end damage to the vehicle. Q. Anything else about the vehicle? A. It was steaming. Q. SO it forced you off. Then what did you do? A. As it forced me off, it went by. I noticed all of those things about the vehicle. 4 3 Transcript of Proceedings, October 11, 2005, p. 3. 4 Transcript of Proceedings, October 11, 2005, pp. 4-5. 2 CP-21-CRIMINAL 1218 - 2005 Since the encounter took place in the Borough of Shippensburg, the Sergeant did not attempt to effectuate a traffic stop. Instead he contacted the borough police by radio, turned around, and proceeded to follow the defendant's vehicle. The defendant ran a stop sign as he turned left onto Morris Street where he continued to drive completely in the wrong lane of travel. When the vehicle turned left onto Orange Street, still in the wrong lane, the Sergeant noticed headlights coming toward them. To warn the oncoming motorist, Sergeant Bradnick activated his emergency lights as the defendant was approaching Locust Street. The defendant made a quick turn onto Locust Street where the borough police were coming towards him with their emergency lights activated. The defendant's car went onto the sidewalk and came to a stop with the borough cruiser right in front of it. The defendant raises two allegations of error in connection with our denial of his motion to suppress. In the first instance, he contends that the traffic stop was made by Sergeant Bradnick outside of his primary jurisdiction in violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act. 5 However, we were satisfied that the stop was effectuated by the Shippensburg Borough Police Officers, not by Sergeant Bradnick. Sergeant Bradnick activated his emergency lights only to warn oncoming traffic in order to avoid a collision. At the same instant as the Sergeant activated his lights, the defendant turned onto Locust Street where he was confronted by the borough cruiser with its emergency lights flashing. It was the borough cruiser, not Sergeant Bradnick, that initiated the traffic stop. Since the stop was made within the Borough of Shippensburg, there was no violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act. 542 Pa. C.S. ~ 8951, et seq. 3 CP-21-CRIMINAL 1218 - 2005 The defendant's second allegation of error is that the police did not have "the requisite reasonable suspicion/probable cause to initiate the traffic stop." We note that Sergeant Bradnick contacted the borough police department to advise them that he was almost hit head on by a vehicle traveling in the wrong lane of travel, without headlights and with heavy front end damage.6 We also note that the Sergeant maintained "constant radio contact directly with the officers" until the vehicle was stopped by them.7 In view of these circumstances, for the defendant to suggest that the officer's stop of his vehicle was improper is simply ridiculous. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Michelle H. Sibert, Esquire For the Commonwealth William T. Tully, Esquire F or the Defendant :sld 6 Transcript of Proceedings, October 11, 2005, p. 3. 7 Transcript of Proceedings, October 11, 2005, p. 7. 4