Com. v. Copenhaver, V.
238 A.3d 509
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- On August 31, 2015, Adams County Deputy Sheriff Timothy Beall stopped Victor Copenhaver’s pickup for an expired Pennsylvania registration sticker.
- At the stop deputies detected odors of alcohol and marijuana; Copenhaver displayed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admitted a suspended license, and said he had a smoking "bowl" in his pocket; deputies recovered a pipe and marijuana and later arrested him for DUI and related offenses.
- The parties stipulated to the operative facts at the suppression hearing; the trial court denied the motion to suppress and convicted Copenhaver after a bench trial.
- The Superior Court initially affirmed, construing Leet and Marconi to permit a sheriff’s deputy to enforce Vehicle Code violations that amount to a breach of the peace, including expired tags.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held driving with an expired registration is not a breach of the peace (defining breach narrowly as acts causing or likely to cause harm, violence, danger, or public disorder) and remanded for consideration of whether the deputy knew before the stop that the tag belonged to a different vehicle.
- On remand the Superior Court concluded the record shows the deputy learned the tag belonged to another vehicle only after the stop; because an expired tag alone is not a breach of the peace and no pre-stop breach is shown, the stop was unlawful, suppression should have been granted, and the judgment of sentence was vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving with an expired registration tag is a "breach of the peace" that authorizes a sheriff deputy to stop/arrest under common law authority | Expired tag constitutes a Vehicle Code violation that can amount to a breach of the peace under Leet/Marconi | Driving with an expired tag is passive, nonviolent, and does not risk harm or public disorder, so it is not a breach | The Supreme Court defined breach of the peace narrowly and held an expired registration is not a breach; Superior Court followed and held stop not justified on that basis |
| Whether Deputy Beall knew before the stop that the registration belonged to a different vehicle (possible theft) | Commonwealth: the tag belonged to another vehicle and that distinct possibility of theft could constitute a breach justifying the stop | Copenhaver: no record evidence the deputy knew that fact before initiating the stop | Superior Court found the affidavit and stipulation indicate the deputy discovered the mismatch after the stop, so no pre-stop knowledge to justify detention |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying suppression of evidence obtained from the stop | Stop was supported by probable cause for a registration violation and deputy authority; evidence should be admissible | Stop was unlawful (no breach or pre-stop basis), so derivative evidence should be suppressed | Suppression denial reversed; stop held improper; convictions vacated and case remanded |
| Scope and limits of sheriff/deputy common-law authority to enforce the Vehicle Code (Leet) | Leet permits sheriffs/deputies to enforce Vehicle Code violations that amount to breaches of the peace when trained like police | Copenhaver: Leet cannot be read to allow stops for nonviolent, passive violations; breach must be narrowly defined | Leet remains but is cabined by the Supreme Court’s narrow breach-of-the-peace definition (harm, potential harm, provocation of violence, danger, or disorder) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Leet, 641 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1994) (recognized common-law arrest/enforcement powers of sheriffs for motor-vehicle violations that amount to a breach of the peace)
- Commonwealth v. Marconi, 64 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2013) (discussed limits on sheriff/deputy authority under Leet)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhaver, 229 A.3d 242 (Pa. 2020) (Supreme Court holding expired registration is not a breach of the peace and defining breach narrowly)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019) (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (principles on traffic-stop probable cause under Vehicle Code)
- Commonwealth v. Rapak, 138 A.3d 666 (Pa. Super. 2016) (scope of review limited to the suppression-hearing record)