Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-1900 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 1900 CRIMINAL 1992 CHARGE: (A)RESISTING ARREST (B)UNLAW POSS SM AMT MARIJUANA (C) DUI (D)DISORDERLY CONDUCT DAMON R. HOCKENSMITH AFFIANT: PTL. DENNIS R. STUM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER. J ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 1993, upon consideration of the Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief, in the form of a Motion to Suppress, based upon the alleged unconstitutionality and illegality of a DUI sobriety checkpoint and/or stop of the Defendant, the Defendant's motion is DENIED. By the Court, I J Wesley Ole', Jr., J; ALISON TAYLOR, ESQUIRE Assistant District Attorney ARLA M. WALLER, ESQUIRE Assistant Public Defender wcy COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 1900 CRIMINAL 1992 CHARGE: (A)RESISTING ARREST (B)UNLAW POSS SM AMT MARIJUANA (C) DUI (D)DISORDERLY CONDUCT DAMON R. HOCKENSMITH AFFIANT: PTL. DENNIS R. STUM OLER, J. IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT In the present criminal case in which the Defendant is charged with resisting arrest, unlawful possession of a small amount of marijuana, driving under the influence, and disorderly conduct, an Omnibus Pretrial Motion has been filed on behalf of the Defendant. The motion requests suppression of evidence seized as a result of an allegedly unconstitutional DUI sobriety checkpoint and/or allegedly illegal stop of Defendant. An evidentiary hearing was held on the matter on January 21, 1993. Based upon the evidence submitted at the hearing and the allegations in combination with admissions in the Defendant's motion and Commonwealth's answer, the following Findings of Fact, Discussion, and Order of Court, are made and entered. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On September 12, 1992, the Defendant was arrested and charged with the above -captioned offenses. 2. Prior to the Defendant's arrest, on that date a DUI sobriety checkpoint was conducted in the area of 2881 Spring Road, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The said checkpoint had been authorized as to time and place administratively by Police Chief William Weaver of the North Middleton Township Police Department, Police Chief Barry Sherman of the Middlesex Township Police Department, and John Rich, Chief of the Cumberland County DUI Department, the latter department being a unit or agency of the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office. 4. The procedure employed by the aforesaid DUI department at the said checkpoint was to stop all cars traveling in each direction during the time that the checkpoint was in operation; this procedure had been administratively determined as aforesaid. 5. The time and location of the said checkpoint was determined administratively on the basis of the high traffic volume on the road, the number of prior DUI accidents in that area, and the number of prior DUI arrests in that area. 6. The aforesaid checkpoint contained signs announcing its presence in such a manner that warnings were given 500 feet in advance of the checkpoint or better to oncoming traffic, and the said checkpoint was clearly visible well in advance of its location and was extremely well lit. 7. As indicated in the prior finding, the question of which vehicles to stop at the roadblock was not left to the discretion of police officers or other persons at the scene, but instead was determined administratively and in this case was to involve the stopping of all vehicles. 8. The checkpoint as to time and location and the procedures employed on this particular occasion were in substantial conformity with the policy and procedures set forth in the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office, DUI Department, Sobriety Checkpoint Policy and Procedures Manual, which constitutes State's Exhibit 1. 9. The results and procedures employed with respect to the said checkpoint are described in the DUI Sobriety Checkpoint (SCP) report, constituting State's Exhibit 3. 10. Although not drawn to scale, the physical set-up of the aforesaid checkpoint is shown in State's Exhibit 2. 11. At the aforesaid time and location, the Defendant, Damon R. Hockensmith, was driving a vehicle which entered the checkpoint and which stopped at the checkpoint in accordance with directions of an officer, which directions were given to all vehicles approaching that checkpoint. 12. The stop of the Defendant's vehicle was unusual in that it was not a smooth stop but was a sudden one, which caused his vehicle to rock. 13. The Defendant was asked by Middlesex Township Police Officer James Sadler to produce identification, and the Defendant displayed certain signs of intoxication. 14. The signs of intoxication displayed by the Defendant included bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a smell of alcohol emanating from the car, and the flicking of a cigarette at the officer. 15. In addition, the officer observed various beer cans scattered in the Defendant's vehicle, and the Defendant presented the officer with an expired driver's license. 16. The officer had probable cause, if such was required, to believe that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, and the officer also observed, through the expired license, the possibility of an additional Vehicle Code offense. 17. Based on the foregoing observations, the officer properly directed the Defendant to a pull -off area where the investigation continued. 18. In accordance with the allegation in the Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief and the Answer of the Commonwealth, it is found that the Defendant submitted to chemical analysis of his breath, the result of the analysis being a reading of .192 percent blood alcohol level. 19. Sixteen police officers were present at the aforesaid checkpoint as well as other personnel. DISCUSSION The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held in Commonwealth v. Blouse, Pa. , 611 A.2d 1177 (1992), that systematic, nondiscriminatory, nonarbitrary roadblocks are constitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that 75 Pa.C.S. Section 6308(b), authorizing such roadblocks, does not offend the constitution. In Blouse, the Court reviewed the following guidelines from the case of Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277, 535 A.2d 1035 (1987): [T]he conduct of the roadblock itself can be such that it requires only a momentary stop to allow the police to make a brief but trained observation of a vehicle's driver, without entailing any physical search of the vehicle or its occupants. To avoid unnecessary surprise to motorists, the existence of a roadblock can be so conducted as to be ascertainable from a reasonable distance or otherwise made knowable in advance. The possibility of arbitrary roadblocks can be significantly curtailed by the institution of certain safeguards. First, the very decision to hold a drunk -driver roadblock, as well as the decision as to its time and place, should be matters reserved for prior administrative approval, Thus removing the determination of those matters from the discretion of police officers in the field. In this connection it is essential that the route selected for the roadblock be one which, based on local experience, is likely to be travelled by intoxicated drivers. The time of the roadblock should be governed by the same consideration. Additionally, the question of which vehicles to stop at the roadblock should not be left to the unfettered discretion of police officers at the scene, but instead should be in accordance with objective standards prefixed by administrative decision. Commonwealth v. Blouse, Pa. , , 611 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1992). "Substantial compliance with the guidelines is all that is required to reduce the intrusiveness of the search to a constitutionally acceptable level." Id. at , 611 A.2d at 1180. In the present case, the Court finds that the Commonwealth fully met the standards for a checkpoint set forth in Blouse, and, further, that Officer Sadler had probable cause to detain the Defendant for further investigation based upon the officer's observations. For these reasons, the following Order will be entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 1993, upon consideration of the Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief, in the form of a Motion to Suppress, based upon the alleged unconstitutionality and illegality of a DUI sobriety checkpoint and/or stop of the Defendant, the Defendant's motion is DENIED. By the Court, J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. ALISON TAYLOR, ESQUIRE Assistant District Attorney ARLA M. WALLER, ESQUIRE Assistant Public Defender wcy