Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1073-2005 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. TONY C. TRA VITZ NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1073 - 2005 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925 Guido, J., August , 2006 The defendant has filed this timely appeal in which he alleges that we erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. In essence he disagrees with our finding that the police had grounds to conduct an investigatory stop of his vehicle. 1 On a more troubling note, defendant's counsel accuses us of failing to be "detached and neutral", alleging that we were "looking for a reason not to suppress the evidence, and. . . actively assisting the Commonwealth.,,2 We will address these issues in the opinion that follows. THE STOP On September 6, 2005 we held a hearing in connection with the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The only witness to testify was Officer Keith Seibert of the North Middleton Township Police Department. During rush hour on October 8,2004 he was in the parking lot of a convenience store at the intersection of U. S. Route 11 and Wolf s Bridge Rd.3 There was a vehicle stopped on Route 11 waiting to make a left hand turn onto Wolf s Bridge Road. As the defendant approached the intersection he "laid on 1 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal", paragraphs, 1 and 2. 2 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal", paragraph 3. 3 Transcript of Proceedings, September 6,2005, p. 5. NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1073 - 2005 the horn". 4 Officer Seibert then observed the passenger through the car's open window "yelling and screaming, flailing inside the vehicle as they blew past the vehicle on the right berm."s The District Attorney asked the officer to articulate the exact reason for the stop. The officer responded as follows: I pulled the vehicle over because I felt that their action would have alarmed traffic (at) that intersection due to the heavy volume of traffic during rush hour and that - - had that not been the case, this person that I felt was (in) distress or alarmed may be was (in) need of police contact. I pulled the vehicle over to conduct an investigative situation to find out what was wrong if anything and, if not, why they would conduct themselves in that manner going through that intersection at that hour.6 During closing argument the Commonwealth contended that the officer had articulated a reasonable basis to investigate a suspected violation of Section 5503 (a) of the Crimes Code.7 The particular portion relied upon by the Commonwealth provides as follows: (a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (2) makes unreasonable noise; After hearing argument from both sides, and having examined the statute, we agreed with the Commonwealth. There is no question that the public can be annoyed or alarmed by the blaring of a car horn on a crowded street. In fact, the specific purpose of the automobile horn is to cause alarm, i. e. to warn of danger. While there are other legitimate uses, such as the short "beep beep" used to acknowledge a friend, the long steady blast made by the defendant could have been nothing other than a sign of danger, 4 Transcript of Proceedings, September 6,2005, p. 6. 5 Transcript of Proceedings, September 6,2005, p. 6. 6 Transcript of Proceedings, September 6,2005, pp. 15-16. 7 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 5503 (a). 2 NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1073 - 2005 distress or road rage. When used in that capacity its only purpose would be to alarm or annoy. If the defendant used his horn to signal danger or distress, it cannot be said to be "unreasonable noise". However, if it was designed for some other purpose, it may be considered to be "unreasonable noise." Under the circumstances in this case, we felt that Officer Seibert was justified in conducting a brief stop to determine what prompted the defendant to lay on his horn. THE COURT'S LACK OF NEUTRALITY Defendant's counsel did not specify what actions compromised our neutrality or were intended to aid the Commonwealth. We have examined the record in detail and could find no basis for his allegation. Admittedly, we had several exchanges with counsel during the course of the hearing.8 However, all of those exchanges were done in a good faith effort to help us understand the issues so that we could correctly decide the matter before us. While counsel (or even an appellate court) may disagree with our conclusion, we take offense at the suggestion that we did anything other than decide this matter on the facts and the law as we found them to be. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire 8 See Transcript of Proceedings, September 6,2005, pp. 6-7, 10-12. 3