Understanding BAC           Marilyn Stein                                   (724) 773-8600
                           
Thurs., August 27        

BACs of Alcohol                 Butler Alcohol Countermeasures        Butler
                                         Gene Stull                                      (724) 287-8952              

 This week, in Commonwealth v. Anthony, --A.2d--, 2009 WL 2006438 (Pa. Super. 2009), a Superior Court panel upheld a DUI conviction where reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle was based entirely upon a named citizen's report of unsafe driving. The citizen called 911 after observing a dark blue Buick that "almost struck a bridge...ran a stop sign...and then drove onto a sidewalk." In addition, the citizen stated that he believed the driver was DUI, and gave the location and license number of the Buick. The 911 dispatcher relayed these observations to the arresting officer, who responded to the location given and stopped the Buick. Subsequent testing showed a BAC above .16%.

At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that she had not personally observed the Defendant violate the Vehicle Code. Rather, she relied upon the information relayed to her by the 911 dispatcher as the reason for initiating a traffic stop. The officer also stated that the citizen who called 911 was still following the Buick, and that she and the caller discussed the caller's observations after she stopped the Defendant.

In affirming the Defendant's conviction, the Superior Court reiterated the principle that police may rely upon information outside of their own observations when conducting an investigative detention. The Court also reemphasized that tips from citizens who identify themselves are presumed to be reliable, because the named citizen faces possible penalties for making a false report. Additionally, the Court reviewed the information given by the citizen in this case, and deemed it sufficiently "detailed and specific" to support the officer's actions. As such, the panel distinguished these facts from those in Commonwealth v. Jones, 845 A.2d 821 (Pa. Super. 2004), the case relied upon by the Defendant.

Click here for the link to the Anthony decision

 

Commonwealth v. Burton, 2009 PA Super 97, ___A.2d___ (Filed: May 13, 2009)
The Superior Court held that Defendant, an unlicensed driver, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when operating a car he did not own and could not establish that he had permission from the vehicle's owner to operate the car, and affirmed the judgment of sentence upon Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to deliver cocaine.  

Commonwealth v. Kendall, 2009 PA Super 100, ___A.2d___ (Filed: May 29, 2009)
The Superior Court reaffirmed that merely activating the lights on a patrol car does not transform the nature of a traffic stop from a brief encounter into an investigatory detention.   

Commonwealth v. Tiche
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Tiche, the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County ruled that HGN evidence and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) testimony is admissible in the trial of a Homicide by Vehicle While Drug-DUI case.

 

If you would like to receive Case Law Updates on a regular basis please contact George Geisler (ggeisler@padui.org) in Eastern PA or Cathy Tress (ctress@padui.org) in Western PA.