239 A.3d 187
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- On March 28, 2019 a casino reported an apparently intoxicated vehicle; Trooper Hartless located and followed the described car (later identified as Gurung’s).
- While following the car on I-90 westbound and its exit ramp, the Trooper observed Gurung change lanes twice without activating a turn signal; the lane changes were otherwise safe and Gurung did signal for the final right turn at the ramp terminus.
- Trooper Hartless stopped Gurung for an alleged violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3334 (Turning Movements and Required Signals) and charged him with DUI and related offenses.
- At suppression hearing Gurung argued § 3334 does not require a signal for lane changes that can be made safely; the suppression court agreed and granted the motion to suppress.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the Trooper had probable cause because § 3334 requires signaling when moving from one lane to another; the Superior Court reversed the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Gurung) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for traffic stop | Trooper observed a violation (failure to signal while changing lanes), so he had probable cause to stop the vehicle. | No violation occurred because § 3334 does not require signaling for safe lane changes; thus no probable cause. | Reversed suppression: probable cause existed because failure to signal a lane change violated § 3334. |
| Interpretation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3334 | § 3334(a) requires an "appropriate signal" before moving from one lane to another; other subsections supply additional particulars, not limitations. | The phrase "in the manner provided in this section" and subsection (b) (which addresses turns and parked starts) show the statute does not require signaling for lane changes. | § 3334 must be read as a whole; it requires signaling for lane changes. Subsection (d) (discontinuing signals after completing movement) supports that lane-change signaling is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable cause required for a stop based on failure to use turn signal)
- Commonwealth v. Slattery, 139 A.3d 221 (Pa. Super. 2016) (signal-timing rules for turns do not specify distance for lane changes—distinguished here)
- Sollinger v. Himchak, 166 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1961) (driver must signal intent before turning into or crossing another lane)
- Commonwealth v. Spieler, 887 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2005) (upholding stop where driver changed lanes without appropriate signals)
- Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2005) (statutory-construction principles; give plain language effect)
- Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (officer may rely on observation of a minor traffic offense as probable cause)