Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-1221 Criminal COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : 1221 CRIMINAL 1993 : CHARGE: (A) DUI (B) MEETING VEHICLE PROCEEDING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (SUM) (C)USE OF MULTIPLE BEAM LIGHTING EQUIPMENT (SUM) (D) DRIVING WITHOUT LIGHTS TO AVOID IDENTIFICATION (SUM) (E) RESTRICTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE (sUM) (F) DUS (SUM) (G) DISPLAYING FOREIGN LICENSE DURING SUSPENSION (SUM) CLAYTON NEAL BONAWITZ : AFFIANT: PTL. TROY WISER OTN: E002827-6 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION FOR RELIEF BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 1994, upon consideration of the Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion For Relief in the form of a suppression motion, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is denied. By the Court, J ~ Wesley 'Or~, ' TRAVIS GERY, ESQUIRE H. ANTHONY ADAMS, ESQUIRE Assistant District Attorney Assistant Public Defender wcy COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : 1221 CRIMINAL 1993 : CHARGE: (A) DUI (B) MEETING VEHICLE PROCEEDING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (SUM) (C)USE OF MULTIPLE BEAM LIGHTING EQUIPMENT (sUM) (D) DRIVING WITHOUT LIGHTS TO AVOID IDENTIFICATION (SUM) (E) RESTRICTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE (SUM) (F) DUS (SUM) (G) DISPLAYING FOREIGN LICENSE DURING SUSPENSION (SUM) CLAYTON NELL BONAWITZ : AFFIANT: PTL. TROY WISER OTN: E002827-6 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION FOR RELIEF BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT OLER, J. In the present criminal case in which the Defendant is charged with driving under the influence and various summary offenses under the Vehicle Code, an Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief has been filed on behalf of the Defendant. The motion requests suppression of evidence derived from a Newville Borough police officer's stop of the Defendant's vehicle. A hearing was held on this Motion on Tuesday, April 5, 1994. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the following Findings of Fact, Discussion and Order of Court are made and entered. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Defendant and moving party is Clayton Neal Bonawitz. 2. On July 12, 1993, at approximately 1:45 a.m., Patrolman Troy L. Wiser of the Newville Borough Police Department was traveling south in a marked patrol vehicle while in full uniform on State Route 233. 3. At the aforesaid time and place, the officer observed a vehicle driven by the Defendant approaching northbound on Route 233. 4. At the aforesaid time and place, the Defendant,s vehicle was straddling the center line of the two-lane highway, being partially in the southbound lane, which lane is in the Borough of Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, the other lane being in the Township of West Pennsboro. 5. The officer turned and pursued the Defendant, and the Defendant pulled into a driveway along the road on the eastbound side of the roadway, said driveway being in West Pennsboro Township. 6. At the aforesaid time and place, the officer was performing duties in connection with an agreement between the Borough of Newville and the Big Spring School District whereby Borough police officers were to patrol schools of the district, notwithstanding that said schools were not all within the Borough of Newville; specifically, the officer was destined for the Oak Flat Elementary School, which is not in the Borough of Newville. 7. The arrest of the Defendant by the officer occurred in the aforesaid driveway, which was approximately one-tenth of a mile from the point that the Defendant was first seen driving on the wrong side of the road within the Borough of Newville by the officer. 8. The Defendant was charged by the officer with driving under the influence and Vehicle Code violations relating to meeting a vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction, use of multiple beam lighting equipment, driving without lights to avoid identification, restriction of alcoholic beverages, driving under suspension, and displaying a foreign license during suspension. 9. In the course of the driving events related heretofore, the Defendant turned out his lights to avoid identification. 10. During the course of the driving events heretofore related, the Defendant's vehicle extended approximately one-half of its width into the oncoming lane of traffic within the Borough of Newville. 11. At no time between the officer's first sighting of the vehicle and the arrest of the Defendant did the officer lose sight of the Defendant, and he pursued the Defendant immediately upon viewing the aforesaid violation, which violation did constitute a risk to the public. DISCUSSION The Defendant,s motion is premised upon Section 8953 of the Judicial Code, which relates to statewide municipal police jurisdiction. Based upon the Findings of Fact recited above, it is believed by the Court that the officer's activity was authorized with respect to jurisdiction by Section 8952 of the Judicial Code (Primary Municipal Police Jurisdiction) and Section 8953(a) (2), which provides as follows: Any duly employed municipal police officer who is within this Commonwealth, but beyond the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction, shall have the power and authority to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth or otherwise perform the functions of that office as if enforcing those laws or performing those functions within the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction ... [w]here the officer is in hot pursuit of any person for any offense which was committed, or which he has probable cause to believe was committed, within his primary jurisdiction and for which offense the officer continues in fresh pursuit of the person after the commission of the offense. In addition, it is believed that the officer,s activities can be justified on a jurisdictional basis under Section 8953(a) (5) of the Judicial Code, which authorizes jurisdiction "where the officer is on official business and views an offense, or has probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed, and makes a reasonable effort to identify himself as a police officer and which offense is a felony, misdemeanor, breach of the peace or other act which presents an immediate clear and present danger to persons or property." For these reasons, the following Order will be entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 1994, upon consideration of the Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion For Relief in the form of a suppression motion, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is denied. By the Court, /s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. TRAVIS GERY, ESQUIRE Assistant District Attorney H. ANTHONY ADAMS, ESQUIRE Assistant Public Defender