Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0000412-2013 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JAY DAVID GROSS : CP-21-CR-0412-2013 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., June 20, 2013:-- Defendant, Jay D. Gross, is charged with two counts of Driving under the Influence. He filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on June 3, 2013. Counsel submitted briefs on June 14, 2013. After consideration of the foregoing, the court makes the following findings of fact: 1. On August 11, 2012, Officer Jared Huff was on patrol for the Silver Spring Township Police Department. 2. At 1:36 a.m., Office Huff received a communication from the Cumberland County Dispatch Center, which relayed a request from the Mechanicsburg Borough Police Department to locate and stop a vehicle that had been involved in a domestic dispute. 3. The dispatch noted that the vehicle in question was a large gray Dodge diesel truck and that the operator, Jay Gross, was intoxicated and travelling north on York Street toward Hogestown Road. 4. Because the vehicle was headed towards Silver Spring Township, Officer Huff kept his eyes open for the vehicle. At approximately 1:43 a.m. after observing a large gray in color truck cross the Carlisle Pike CP-21-CR-0412-2013 and drive around a parking lot of the Cumberland Valley High School, Officer Huff stopped the vehicle. 5. Although Officer Huff had observed the vehicle travelling at a high rate of speed in the parking lot, the purpose of the stop was not to investigate a potential driving under the influence violation but was to assist the Mechanicsburg Borough Police Department in their investigation of the domestic dispute. 6. Officer Huff verified the driver was Jay Gross, the individual involved in the domestic dispute. 7. The Mechanicsburg Police Department was notified of the stop and arrived shortly thereafter to continue their investigation. 8. When Officer Huff verified the identity of the operator, he noted an odor of alcoholic beverages and that the operator had glazed eyes. 9. Because of these clues of intoxication, Officer Huff conducted standardized field sobriety tests which yielded further evidence of intoxication. 10. Based on the foregoing, the officer’s experience, and his interaction with the Defendant, Officer Huff determined that he had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for driving under the influence. 11. The Mechanicsburg Borough Police Department filed charges of Simple Assault and summary Harassment in connection with the domestic dispute. -2- CP-21-CR-0412-2013 12. Defendant pled guilty to summary Harassment on November 27, 2012 before Magisterial District Judge Brenda M. Knepper. I. Discussion Defendant raises the following issues in his Motion to Suppress: 1. The patrolman lacked sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant; 2. The officer did not possess sufficient articulable facts to support a conclusion of reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle violation was being committed when he executed the traffic stop of Petitioner’s vehicle and thus said stop was unlawful; and 3. The prosecution in the present matter is barred because Petitioner was prosecuted for a different offense meeting the criteria of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1 110. We will address those issues in reverse order. Prosecution barred by 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 Counsel raise several good points in their briefs; however, the most salient one is the requirement for the court to conduct a case-by-case factual determination. Commonwealth v. Bellezza, 603 A.2d 1031, 1037 (Pa. Super. 1992). Having done so, we note that the cases cited by Defendant are factually distinct and offer little support for his contention that a plea to summary Harassment emanating from a domestic dispute precludes the Commonwealth from pursuing the driving under the influence charges. Perhaps, had the Defendant pulled out of the driveway of his house and been arrested shortly thereafter by the Mechanicsburg Police Department, he would have a better argument. Conversely, the facts presented to the court 1 Defendant’s Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion, filed May 20, 2013. -3- CP-21-CR-0412-2013 demonstrate that the offense charged by the Silver Spring Township Police Department was not part of the same criminal episode as the offense brought by the Mechanicsburg Police Department. Aside from Officer Huff assisting the Mechanicsburg Police by pulling the Defendant over and confirming his identity, there is no relevant connection between the two offenses. In essence, the offense in Mechanicsburg ended when the Defendant exited the residence and the offense in Silver Spring began when he exited his vehicle. Therefore, a plea to any offense related to the Mechanicsburg incident has no legal or logical impact on the charges before the court. Reasonable suspicion Defendant argues that there was no reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle violation was committed when Officer Huff conducted the traffic stop. That may be true, but it misses the important fact that Officer Huff did not stop the Defendant because of a motor vehicle violation. Officer Huff testified credibly that he pulled the vehicle over merely to verify the identity of the driver and thereby to assist the Mechanicsburg Police Department. He did not pull the driver over to investigate the possibility that he was under the influence. Only after he confronted the driver was there any indication to the officer that it was necessary to further investigate the Defendant’s condition. Moreover, it was proper for Officer Huff to act upon the request of Mechanicsburg Borough Police Department for assistance. The vehicle matched the description posted and had proceeded in a fairly direct route from Mechanicsburg to the point of the stop. Therefore, the stop of Defendant’s -4- CP-21-CR-0412-2013 vehicle, a mere seven minutes after receiving the dispatch, was proper, especially because the purpose of the stop was to identify the driver. Probable cause to arrest When Officer Huff verified the identity of the Defendant, he noted the odor of alcoholic beverages and the Defendant’s glazed eyes. The officer conducted standardized field sobriety tests which the Defendant performed poorly. These factors, in conjunction with his interactions with the Defendant in general, provided ample probable cause that the Defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while he was under the influence. II. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that the Defendant’s Suppression Motion lacks merit and, accordingly, enter the following order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of June, 2013, following a hearing on Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion and after argument and briefing by counsel, DENIED Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Emily Provencher, Esquire For the Commonwealth Timothy Barrouk, Esquire For Defendant :sal -5- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JAY DAVID GROSS : CP-21-CR-0412-2013 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of June, 2013, following a hearing on Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion and after argument and briefing by counsel, DENIED Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Emily Provencher, Esquire For the Commonwealth Timothy Barrouk, Esquire For Defendant :sal