Com. v. Johnson, T.
Com. v. Johnson, T. No. 907 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- On November 5, 2015, Trooper Kaczor followed Appellee Travelle Johnson for approximately four miles in a 55 mph zone and timed him at 70 mph using the patrol vehicle’s speedometer.
- At the suppression hearing the trooper testified he did not have a current certificate showing the speedometer was calibrated at that time, but it had been certified on May 13, 2015.
- The suppression court found the trooper’s testimony that Johnson was traveling 70 mph in a 55 mph zone to be uncontradicted and credited that observation.
- The Commonwealth conceded calibration proof is required for a conviction but argued only probable cause was required to justify the stop.
- The Majority (dissenting memorandum by Stabile, J.) argues the trooper had probable cause to stop for speeding and therefore suppression of evidence was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trooper had probable cause to stop for speeding | Trooper’s timed observation over 4 miles (70 mph in 55 mph) provided probable cause despite lack of current calibration proof | Appellee argued lack of timely calibration undercuts the basis for the stop | Court majority concluded lack of calibration evidence defeated probable cause for stop; dissent would reverse and find probable cause |
| Whether calibration proof is required to establish probable cause | Commonwealth: calibration proof required only for conviction, not for probable cause to stop | Appellee: absence of calibration undermines reliability of speed reading and probable cause | Held that calibration proof is necessary for conviction but not for establishing probable cause (dissent’s position); majority disagreed on probable cause in this case |
| Proper standard for assessing stop — officer’s belief vs. actual device accuracy | Commonwealth: evaluate from officer’s perspective — whether officer reasonably believed the device accurate | Appellee: focus on objective accuracy of device because evidence reliability impacts legality of stop | Dissent: suppression inquiry should focus on officer’s reasonable belief; majority applied stricter approach |
| Whether evidence observed over distance satisfied statutory timing requirement for speed measurements | Commonwealth: timing over 4 miles exceeds statutory minimum (0.3 miles) and supports speed determination | Appellee: procedural/calibration deficiencies render measurement unreliable | Court found distance timed satisfied statutory minimum; dispute turned on calibration/probable-cause issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements required to sustain a speeding conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (probable cause sufficient for stop need not meet conviction proof)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing probable cause for traffic stops)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defining probable cause standard)
- Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable cause inquiry distinct from trial evidence rules)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Vincett, 806 A.2d 31 (Pa. Super. 2002) (officer’s reasonable belief supports stop; defendant’s colorable defense does not invalidate stop)
- Commonwealth v. Palmer, 751 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2000) (suppression inquiry analyzed from officer’s perspective)