HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002580 – 2011
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. :
:
DANIEL F. LENGYEL : CP-21-CRIMINAL 2580 – 2011
:
:
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., November , 2012
On July 9, 2012, based upon stipulated facts we found the defendant guilty of driving
12
under the influence general impairment, driving under the influence highest rate and driving
3
on roadways laned for traffic. On August 28, 2012 we sentenced him to the mandatory
minimum sentence required by law. He has filed the instant appeal alleging that we erred in
failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically he contends that the initial stop of
his vehicle was improper. We disagreed.
We held a suppression hearing on March 13, 2012. The only witness was Trooper
Michael Burns of the Pennsylvania State Police. He had been working as a Trooper since 1999.
He was trained in investigating driving under the influence violations and administering field
4
sobriety tests.
On May 25, 2011 he was on duty travelling eastbound on East Trindle Road in Hampden
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. As he came upon defendant’s vehicle travelling
5
in the same direction he noticed it weaving within its lane of travel. He followed it for almost a
1
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802 (a) (1).
2
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802 (c).
3
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309 (1).
4
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2012, pp. 3, 4.
5
See Commonwealth Exhibit 1, Proceedings, March 13, 2012.
minute, during which time it continued to weave and crossed the double yellow center line on
6
two occasions. Shortly after the second crossing the trooper initiated the traffic stop.
After hearing the Trooper’s testimony and observing the video taken from his patrol car,
we were satisfied that he had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that the
defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Section 3802 of the Vehicle
7
Code. We were also satisfied that he had probable cause to believe that the defendant had
violated Section 3309 of the Vehicle Code which provides that “a vehicle shall be driven as
nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the
driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309
(1). For those reasons we denied his Motion to Suppress Evidence.
_________________ ___________________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
District Attorney
Edward F. Spreha, Jr., Esquire
:sld
6
See Commonwealth Exhibit 1, Proceedings, March 13, 2012.
7
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802.