Com. v. Brison, M.
2540 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Officer Mitchell observed Brison’s SUV drift over the double yellow line and the fog line multiple times while responding on an overnight shift.
- The SUV pulled into a tavern parking lot on its own; Brison exited, stumbled, and held the door frame as he got out.
- Mitchell did not activate lights or direct the vehicle to stop; after Brison exited, Mitchell approached and asked for identification.
- Mitchell smelled strong alcohol on Brison and noted red eyes, drooping eyelids, and slurred speech; Brison refused field sobriety tests and denied driving.
- Brison was arrested and charged with DUI and related vehicle-code violations; he moved to suppress evidence gathered from the encounter and the suppression court granted the motion.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the encounter either was a consensual encounter or at minimum an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion, and that probable cause supported the DUI arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Brison's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s approach after Brison exited vehicle constituted a traffic "stop" requiring Vehicle Code stop analysis | Not a stop; Brison parked voluntarily and encounter was consensual unless officer coerced | It was a stop (suppression court): officer intended to stop and detained Brison, triggering stop analysis | Interaction not a vehicle stop—Brison had already exited; encounter treated as at most an investigative detention or consensual encounter |
| Whether detention/arrest was supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause for DUI | Officer had reasonable suspicion from observed swerving and then articulable signs of intoxication (stumble, odor, red eyes, slurred speech); probable cause for arrest after those observations | Suppression court found contact unlawful and suppressed evidence | Even if treated as detention, officer had articulable facts to reasonably suspect DUI and subsequent observations gave probable cause to arrest; suppression reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Au, 42 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2012) (request for identification does not by itself convert encounter to investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (vehicle stop must be tied to investigatory purpose relevant to suspected violation)
- Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa. Super. 2013) (single crossing of double yellow line can establish probable cause for vehicle stop)