HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2091-2011
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PE NNSYLVANIA
V. :
:
TARA MEAGAN MURPHY : CP-21-CRIMINAL 2091 – 2011
:
:
IN RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
BEFORE GUIDO, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.)On the early morning Friday, June 3, 2011, Officer Capers of the West Shore Regional
Police Department was on patrol in the area of Market Street in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.
2.)He was in an unmarked vehicle assigned to that area because of recent vehicle thefts
and vehicle entries.
3.)At about 1:40 p.m. he was parked in the 900 Block of Market Street looking for
suspicious activity.
4.)The defendant drove by his location three times. Each time she was on her cell phone.
5.)His initial impression was that “she was looking for someone, looking to pick somebody
up or maybe lost.”
6.)He began to follow her when she made a left turn onto North Eighth Street.
7.)When the officer made the left turn onto North Eighth Street he observed the
defendant’s vehicle stopped in the middle of the road with its reverse white lights
activated. It began to move backward a few feet before she put it back into drive.
8.)Officer Capers continued to follow the vehicle as it turned onto a dead end road.
9.)When she reached the end of the dead end road, the defendant put her vehicle in
reverse and backed out, a total distance of about 50 yards.
10.)Officer Capers followed her to the intersection of Miller and Market Streets
where he initiated a traffic stop.
11.) He effectuated the stop “to see if the operator was in any need of assistance, also
because it was a suspicious vehicle in my opinion.”
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1.)Officer Capers did not have probable cause to believe that a Vehicle Code violation
had occurred.
2.)Officer Capers did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that
criminal activity was afoot.
3.)The traffic stop was not justified .
4.)Any evidence obtained as a result of the stop must be suppressed.
ORDER OF COURT
TH
AND NOW, this 5 day of JANUARY, 2012, the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
Evidence is GRANTED. The Commonwealth is precluded from presenting any evidence
obtained as a result of the improper stop of the Defendant’s vehicle.
By the Court,
________________
Edward E. Guido, J.
District Attorney
Edward Spreha, Esquire
:sld