HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2690-2005
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
TEASHA MARIE POUST
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2690 - 2005
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., May
, 2006
The Commonwealth has filed this timely appeal from our order of February 7,
2006 granting defendant's Motion to suppress evidence. It alleges that we erred in
holding that the stop of defendant's vehicle was improper.l
The facts of this case may be summarized as follows. At about 2:30 a.m. on
August 20,2005 Officer Keith Seibert of the Middlesex Township Police Department
responded to a call placed by a woman from the Hess Station in neighboring Silver
Springs Township. She reported that her husband and his friend, Brian England, were
drinking and out of control at her home in the Country Manor Trailer Park which is
located in Middlesex Township. She further advised, and the officer confirmed, that Mr.
England had outstanding arrest warrants. Finally, she related that Mr. England was with
his wife who was driving him around in a blue mini-van.
Officer Seibert asked the complainant to follow him back to her residence so that
he could confront Mr. England. As he approached the Country Manor Trailer Park he
noticed a blue mini-van with two occupants coming out of one of the two entrances to the
trailer park. He turned around to follow the van, but lost it on one of the many curves on
1 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
CP-21-CRIMINAL 2690 - 2005
Bernheisel Bridge Road. Suspecting that it may have turned into one of the driveways,
he doubled back. Sure enough as he traveled back along Bernheisel Bridge Road, he
noticed headlights turning on in a driveway. As he approached the driveway he
confirmed that the headlights belonged to the same van he had seen leaving the trailer
park. At that point, he activated his emergency lights and effectuated a traffic stop.
The law is well settled that "when an officer effectuates a traffic stop, this is
considered an investigative detention." Commonwealth v. Hill, 874 A.2d 1214, 1220
(Pa. Super 2005). In order to pass constitutional muster, "an investigative detention must
be supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged
in criminal activity. . ." Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 58, 757 A.2d 884, 889
(2000). The reasonable suspicion must be based upon "specific, articulable facts and
reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of the officer's experience."
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 489, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (1997).
In the instant case, we found that the officer had not articulated facts, nor any
reasonable inferences he had drawn, sufficient to justify his belief that the van he stopped
contained Mr. England. At first we note that neither the officer in his testimony, nor the
Commonwealth's attorney in his argument, suggested that the driver of the van was
attempting to elude the officer, or that she even knew the police were following her.
Therefore, we concluded that the van was in the residential driveway for legitimate
purposes such as to drop off, or even pick up, someone who lived there.
The only basis for the stop articulated by the officer, or argued by the
Commonwealth, was the fact that he saw a blue mini-van with two people leaving the
2
CP-21-CRIMINAL 2690 - 2005
trailer park where the complainant lived.2 The officer did not know the make, model,
registration or any other distinguishing characteristics of the van occupied by Mr.
England. Furthermore, there was no evidence to indicate how much time had passed
since the complaint had last seen Mr. England at her home. Although the officer was at
the Hess station within a minute after he received the dispatch, he did not determine how
long the complainant had been there, or the time she had left her home.3
Finally, and most significantly, the van was not seen coming from the
complainant's driveway or even her street. Rather, it was seen coming from one of the
two entrances to a very large trailer park that contained hundreds of homes. Under all of
the above circumstances, we were not satisfied that the officer had articulated a
reasonable basis to believe that the van he stopped contained Mr. England. Therefore, we
granted the defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his
investigatory stop.
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
District Attorney
Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire
F or the Defendant
Probation
Sheriff
:sld
2 The Commonwealth also pointed out that the time of night should have been considered. While we
considered it, we did not find it to be significant.
3 We do know that the officer was with the complainant for as long as 15 minutes at the Hess station before
they started back to her home.
3