HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2824-2005
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
KIMBERLY SMITH
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2824 - 2005
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J. September 14, 2006
After a bench trial the defendant was convicted of several vehicle code violations
including driving under the influence 1, following too closely2, and restriction on alcoholic
beverages? She has filed this timely appeal in which the only issue raised is whether we
erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. 4
On February 21, 2006 we held an evidentiary hearing in connection with the
defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The motion was premised upon the alleged
improper stop of the defendant's vehicle.s We will summarize the facts as we found
them to be.
Shortly before 9:00 p.m. on August 19,2005 Patrolman Eric Beyer of the Mount
Holly Springs Police Department was performing speed enforcement on a section of Mill
Street where the posted speed limit was 25 miles per hour.6 The officer described the
area he was patrolling as follows:
(T)here's a baseball field on the north side of Mill Street. ... There's a
curve. There's a couple of blind - - relatively blind intersection?
1 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3802 (c).
275 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3310.
375 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3809.
4 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
5 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 3.
6 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 5 - 7.
7 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 9.
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2824 - 2005.
As the officer began to clock one vehicle that was traveling at about 25 miles per hour,
the defendant's vehicle approached rapidly and began to follow the first vehicle "very
closely."S There were "less than two car lengths" separating the two vehicles.9 In the
officer's opinion the defendant was following so closely that she would not have been
able to stop without causing a collision. 10 Thereafter, the officer began to follow the
vehicles. He testified that they "were extremely close" such that he "could see that the
defendant's headlights were right on the trunk."ll
The officer effectuated a traffic stop based upon his opinion that the defendant
had violated Section 3 31 0 of the Vehicle Code.12 That Section provides in relevant part
as follows:
The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more
closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of
the vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.
75 Pa. C.S.A. S 3310 (a). In the instant case the defendant was traveling in a residential
area, near a little league baseball field, along a curve with blind intersections. In such a
neighborhood, on a summer evening, we can imagine a host of situations that could
require a sudden stop. A stray pet, a darting child, an inattentive driver backing out onto
the highway all come to mind. Under those circumstances we were satisfied that
following so closely she could not safely stop in the event of an emergency and was
"more closely than is reasonable and prudent." Therefore, we held that Officer Beyer had
8 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 7-8.
9 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 8.
10 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 15.
11 Transcript of Proceedings, February 21,2006, p. 11.
1275 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3310 (a).
2
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2824 - 2005.
probable cause to believe that she was in violation of Section 3310.13
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
Derek Clepper, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Shane Kope, Esquire
F or the Defendant
:sld
13 See Commonwealth v Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545,668 A.2d 1113 (1995). Of course "an actual violation of
the [MVC] need not ultimately be established to validate a vehicle stop". Commonwealth v Snell, 811 A.2d
581,584 (Pa. Super 2002). We note, however, that the defendant has not challenged her conviction for
following too closely.
3