Com. v. Maguire, J.
654 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Trooper Beaver conducted a commercial vehicle safety inspection of Jeffery Maguire’s truck at a Clinton County landfill; Beaver was the sole witness at the suppression hearing.
- Maguire moved to suppress evidence obtained after the stop, arguing the systematic inspection did not comply with the Tarbert/Blouse checkpoint guidelines.
- The suppression court held the inspection program failed to satisfy Tarbert/Blouse, particularly the requirement that stops be governed by administratively pre-fixed, objective standards.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the majority concluded the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines did not apply to commercial vehicle inspections under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4704 because trucking is a closely regulated industry.
- Judge Lazarus (dissent) argues Tarbert/Blouse should apply to commercial checkpoints, that the inspection here lacked sufficient warning, locality-based time/place basis, and objective stopping criteria, and therefore the stop was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tarbert/Blouse checkpoint guidelines apply to commercial vehicle systematic inspections | Maguire: guidelines apply to commercial and non‑commercial systematic stops | Commonwealth: commercial inspections fall within closely regulated‑industry exception; Tarbert/Blouse not required | Lazarus (dissent): Tarbert/Blouse do apply to commercial checkpoints |
| Whether the inspection here complied with Tarbert/Blouse (warning, time/place basis, objective stopping standards) | Maguire: program lacked sufficient warning, local time/place justification, and objective stop criteria | Commonwealth: trooper acted under statutory authority for systematic inspections and lawfully stopped vehicle | Lazarus (dissent): record shows noncompliance with several Tarbert/Blouse factors; stop was unlawful |
| Whether evidence seized after detection of alcohol was admissible given regulatory‑inspection framework | Maguire: evidence should be suppressed because initial stop was unlawful | Commonwealth: once officer detected alcohol, regulatory inspection exception allowed detention and seizure | Lazarus (dissent): admissibility depends on lawfulness of administrative stop; because stop was unlawful, evidence should be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (plurality) (establishes five checkpoint criteria to make roadblocks constitutionally acceptable)
- Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (adopts Tarbert guidelines and applies them to checkpoint constitutionality)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (sets framework for warrantless administrative inspections of closely regulated businesses)
- Commonwealth v. Petroll, 738 A.2d 993 (Pa. 1999) (recognizes trucking as a closely regulated industry and discusses §4704 administrative inspection limits)
- Commonwealth v. Garibay, 106 A.3d 136 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applies Tarbert/Blouse to non‑DUI seatbelt checkpoint and requires proof of compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Worthy, 957 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2008) (reiterates Tarbert/Blouse criteria and the substantial‑compliance standard)