Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-0107 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM : CHARGE: DUI JEFFREY WILLIAM GOOD : OTN: E212454-4 : AFFIANT: TPR. GOVAN MARTIN IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of September, 1994, after careful consideration of Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion for relief, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, the motion to suppress is DENIED, the motion in limine is DEFERRED to trial with the direction that the Commonwealth not elicit testimony on scoring or on "failure" with respect to field sobriety tests without prior approval of the trial judge, and the motion to quash is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Jaime Keating, Esq. Assistant District Attorney David R. Breschi, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for the Defendant : rc COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM : CHARGE: DUI JEFFREY WILLIAM GOOD : OTN: E212454-4 : AFFIANT: TPR. GOVAN MARTIN IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. In the present case, Defendant is charged with driving under the influence~ as a result of an incident occurring on Sunday, November 21, 1993.2 For disposition at this time is an omnibus pretrial motion for relief3 filed on his behalf.4 The motion seeks the following: (a) suppression of certain field sobriety tests and of "Defendant's arrest, which arrest was illegal and tainted" by the tests;5 (b) non-admission of evidence of the tests on evidentiary grounds;6 and (c) a quashal of the information as it relates to Section 3731(a)(5) of the Vehicle Code on constitutional grounds.7 ~ See Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 (1994 Supp.). 2 N.T. 5, Hearing in re Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion, August 3, 1994 (hereinafter N.T. __). 3 See Pa. R. Crim. P. 306. 4 Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion, filed June 1, 1994 (hereinafter Defendant's Omnibus Pre-trial Motion, at __.). Defendant's Omnibus Pre-trial Motion, at 1-2. Defendant's Omnibus Pre-trial Motion, at 2. Defendant's Omnibus Pre-trial Motion, at 2-16. 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM A hearing on the motion was held on Wednesday, August 3, 1994. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendant's motion to suppress will be denied, the evidentiary motion will be deferred to trial, and the motion to quash will be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant and moving party is Jeffrey William Good. 2. On the morning of Sunday, November 21, 1993, at about 12:30 a.m., on State Route 581 in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Defendant was involved in a one-vehicle accident.8 3. Pennsylvania State Trooper Govan Anthony Martin, III, accompanied by a trooper named Readler, arrived on the scene at 12:35 a.m. 4. Defendant attributed the accident to a dog's running out in front of him.~° 5. Defendant's eyes were glassy, he emitted a strong odor of alcohol, and he swayed and staggered as he walked.~ 6. Trooper Martin administered two field sobriety tests: the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test.~2 8 N.T. 5-6. 9 N.T. 5. ~0 N.T. 13. ~ N.T. 6. ~2 N.T. 6-7. 2 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM 7. The trooper demonstrated how to properly perform the tests before asking Defendant to begin.~3 8. In the walk-and-turn test, Defendant did not touch heel to toe, did not keep his balance, and did not walk in a straight line.TM 9. In the one-leg-stand test, Defendant did not keep his hands at his side~5 and put his leg down twice within 30 seconds.~ 10. The trooper felt that Defendant had not passed - i.e., had failed - both tests.~7 11. The trooper had received training in the administration of field sobriety tests at the State Police Academy in 1984 and 1988;~8 however, he did not recall who had taught him and he said there "was no manual" regarding the tests.~9 12. The trooper did not make any notes regarding the field sobriety tests.2° 13. The trooper said that there was a scoring system in ~3 N.T. 7, 13. ~4 N.T. 9. ~5 N.T. 20. ~ N.T. 16, 26. ~7 N.T. 7, 13, 16-17. ~8 N.T. 4, 7. ~9 N.T. 21. 20 N.T. 8. 3 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM connection with the tests.2~ When asked whether he went by the scoring system in Defendant's case, he testified, "I could have, and he would have failed it. 14. The trooper testified that he mentally scored Defendant,~3 but that he did not keep track of the points.~4 15. Following administration of the field sobriety tests, the trooper placed Defendant under arrest for driving under the influence.2s 16. Defendant advised the trooper, according to the trooper's testimony, that he had not had anything to drink following the accident.26 17. The trooper testified that Defendant did not drink while in his custody.~7 18. While Defendant was in custody, a sample of his blood was drawn at 1:44 a.m.; the blood alcohol content (BAC) test result was .15%.28 N.T. 18-19. 22 N.T. 20. N.T. 20. N.T. 21. 25 N.T. 12. N.T. 35. N.T. 35. N.T. 27. 4 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM 19. Defendant is charged with violations of Sections 3731(a)(1), 3731(a)(4) and 3731(a)(5) of the Vehicle Code-29 DISCUSSION Validity of Defendant's arrest followinq field sobriety tests. "[A]n officer may stop and briefly detain and question an individual if the investigating officer can point to specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the belief that criminal activity is afoot. These brief investigatory stops are not considered to be arrests." 1 Wasserbly, Pennsylvania Criminal Practice §6.01 (1991). "A policeman who lacks the requisite level of information for probable cause is not required to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape." Id. §6.02. Even in the absence of probable cause, an investigating police officer may stop and briefly detain an individual, as long as the officer can point to specific and articulable facts, which, in conjunction with the natural inferences derived from these facts, warrant the intrusion.3° "An investigative detention, of course, may ripen into an arrest based on probable cause when police uncover additional 29 Defendant's Omnibus Pre-trial Motion, Exhibit "A" (Information). 1 Wasserbly, Pennsylvania Criminal Practice §6.02 (1991). The same principles apply to a vehicle stop for a suspected violation of a Vehicle Code provision. Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 (1994 Supp.); see Commonwealth v. McElroy, 428 Pa. Super. 69, 630 A.2d 35 (1993). 5 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM information confirming earlier suspicions." 1 Wasserbly, Pennsylvania Criminal Practice §6.02 (1991); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hamme, 400 Pa. Super. 537, 583 A.2d 1245 (1990). Probable cause is "those facts and circumstances available at the time of the arrest which would justify a reasonable prudent man in the belief that a crime has been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator." Commonwealth v. Harper, 485 Pa. 572, 583, 403 A.2d 536, 542 (1979). In the present case, the indicia of driving under the influence - including Defendant's involvement in a one-car accident, his glassy eyes, the odor of alcohol, his swaying and staggering gait, and his lack of coordination during field sobriety tests - constituted circumstances justifying the trooper's belief, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, that a crime had been committed and that Defendant was the probable perpetrator. This is so without regard to whether Defendant accumulated a certain "score" on the field sobriety tests and without regard to whether an opinion by the trooper would be admissible at trial classifying Defendant's performance on the tests as a "failure." For this reason, Defendant's motion to suppress will be denied. Admissibility of evidence of field sobriety tests. Based upon the facts recited in the initial portion of this Opinion, it is believed that the physical observations of the trooper with regard to Defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests are 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM admissible as bearing upon his coordination. On the other hand, it does not appear at this stage that the Commonwealth has established a sufficient foundation to warrant admission of testimony by the trooper as to Defendant's "scores" on the tests or as to his opinion that Defendant "failed" the tests. For this reason, Defendant's motion in limine will be deferred to time of trial, with the instruction that the Commonwealth not elicit information as to Defendant's scores on, or his passage or failure of, the tests without first securing approval of the trial judge. Constitutionality of Section 3731(a)(5) of the vehicle Code. The issue of the constitutionality of Section 3731(a)(5) of the Vehicle Code has recently been adjudicated by this Court in Commonwealth v. Gumbert, 94-0323 Criminal Term (Cumberland Co., September 9, 1994). Having held the statute constitutional in Gumbert, the Court will reach the same result here. A copy of Gumbert is attached hereto and incorporated herein. For the reasons stated in Gumbert, Defendant's motion to quash will be denied. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this /~ day of September, 1994, after careful consideration of Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion for relief, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, the motion to suppress is DENIED, the motion in limine is DEFERRED to trial with the direction that the Commonwealth not elicit testimony on 94-0107 CRIMINAL TERM scoring or on "failure" with respect to field sobriety tests without prior approval of the trial judge, and the motion to quash is DENIED. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Jaime Keating, Esq. Assistant District Attorney David R. Breschi, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for the Defendant :re 8