Com. v. Mercado, M.
Com. v. Mercado, M. No. 1444 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 25, 2017Background
- On Aug. 1, 2015 Malik Mercado was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on East Allegheny Ave in Philadelphia’s 25th Police District and charged with DUI (marijuana).
- Municipal Court suppressed evidence, concluding the checkpoint was unconstitutional; Court of Common Pleas affirmed; Commonwealth appealed.
- Issue focused on compliance with Tarbert/Blouse localization requirement: whether choice of checkpoint location was based on experience showing intoxicated drivers likely travel that route.
- Police relied on district-level data showing the 25th District had the highest number of DUI arrests in Philadelphia (2013–2014); no data specific to Allegheny Ave or narrower routes were offered.
- Checkpoint logistics and safety concerns (large operation requiring ~18 officers and substantial space) influenced site selection; officers ruled out small residential streets.
- Trial court held district-wide data covering 2.3 square miles was not sufficiently specific to satisfy Tarbert/Blouse; Superior Court affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police satisfied Tarbert/Blouse localization requirement for checkpoint location | Commonwealth: district-level DUI statistics showing 25th District had highest DUI arrests justified placing checkpoint somewhere in the district | Mercado: district-level data not sufficiently specific to show Allegheny Ave was a route likely used by intoxicated drivers; required location-specific data | Held: Commonwealth failed to show substantial compliance; 2.3 sq. mile district data insufficient to justify Allegheny Ave checkpoint |
| Whether Blee is distinguishable from Fioretti | Commonwealth: argues police-district data like Fioretti is sufficient; districts are valid units for localization | Mercado: Blee shows need for greater specificity; city borough or small-area analysis required | Held: Court finds tension between Fioretti and Blee and agrees Blee is not easily distinguished; specificity required here was not met |
| Whether safety/logistics justify lack of more granular data | Commonwealth: large checkpoint size and safety concerns justify choosing a larger, safer route without more granular stats | Mercado: safety concerns do not excuse failure to produce localized DUI data for the chosen route | Held: Safety concerns acknowledged but do not substitute for evidence showing the specific route was likely traveled by intoxicated drivers |
| Whether suppression standard/application of law below was erroneous | Commonwealth: suppression court misapplied Tarbert/Blouse and precedent | Mercado: suppression court correctly applied precedent and factual standard; findings entitled to deference | Held: Superior Court defers to factfindings, reviews law de novo, and affirms suppression order |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (establishes DUI checkpoint framework balancing public safety and individual liberty)
- Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (clarifies limits on officer discretion and checkpoint requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Fioretti, 538 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. 1988) (upheld checkpoint where district-level DUI statistics supported location choice)
- Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997) (reversed where county/municipality-level data failed to show localization to the specific checkpoint route)
- Commonwealth v. Garibray, 106 A.3d 136 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (summarizes Tarbert/Blouse five-part substantial-compliance test)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 118 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explains standard of review on suppression appeals)