Com. v. Johnson, T.
Com. v. Johnson, T. No. 907 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- On Nov. 5, 2015, Trooper Jason Kaczor followed Travelle Johnson northbound on I-83 and observed alleged lane departures and clocked the vehicle at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone.
- Trooper Kaczor initiated a traffic stop after following Johnson approximately four miles.
- At contact the trooper smelled burnt marijuana; Johnson exited, showed signs of impairment, refused to finish field sobriety tests, and was arrested.
- A search of the vehicle yielded a burnt cigar and a plastic bag with a green leafy substance.
- Johnson filed a suppression motion; the trial court granted it, finding the stop lacked probable cause. The Commonwealth appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the stop was supported by probable cause (required for observed lane or speed violations) and affirmed the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver: whether suppression claim was properly preserved under Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D) | Johnson’s omnibus motion lacked the specificity required, so claim waived | Omnibus motion adequately stated facts, grounds, and evidence to suppress | Not waived — omnibus motion complied with Rule 581(D) |
| Validity of stop for lane violations (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309) | Trooper observed multiple crosses over fog/center lines; stop was lawful | Trooper’s observations were equivocal and not supported by video or testimony | Stop not supported by probable cause for lane violations; suppression proper |
| Validity of stop for speeding (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3362) | Trooper clocked vehicle at 70 mph in 55 zone; probable cause for speeding stop | Trooper couldn’t verify certification of speed device and testimony/video was unreliable | Stop not supported by probable cause for speeding; suppression proper |
| Probable cause for DUI arrest based on odor and indicia of impairment | Smell of burnt marijuana, dilated/bloodshot eyes, staggering, admission of drinking established probable cause | Stop was illegal; evidence and observations following unlawful stop should be suppressed | Court did not reach separate merits because initial stop lacked probable cause; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McClease v. Commonwealth, 750 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for suppression orders)
- Gutierrez v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2012) (scope of review: admissible evidence for suppression appeal)
- Salter v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing when probable cause v. reasonable suspicion is required for vehicle stops)
- Busser v. Commonwealth, 56 A.3d 419 (Pa. Super. 2012) (probable cause required where stop isn’t needed to investigate suspected violation)
- Feczko v. Commonwealth, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (officer must articulate specific facts supporting belief driver violated Vehicle Code)
- Wells v. Commonwealth, 916 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Super. 2007) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances and officer experience)
- Thompson v. Commonwealth, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (officer experience relevant to probable cause analysis)
- Chase v. Commonwealth, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (officer has probable cause if he observes a traffic code violation)