Com. v. Pitzer, N.
685 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- At ~1:58 a.m. on March 29, 2015, Trooper Severin Thierwechter observed a northbound vehicle on Yellow Hill Road that appeared to be in the left lane of the two‑lane road near its intersection with State Route 234.
- Trooper stopped his cruiser, backed up to make the turn onto Yellow Hill Road, and briefly followed the vehicle; he observed weaving within its lane and other lateral movement on both straight and curved segments.
- Dash‑cam video confirmed a narrow, curving road and some swerving within the lane, but did not clearly corroborate the trooper’s initial observation of the vehicle traveling entirely in the wrong lane.
- Trooper, with DUI detection training and prior DUI arrests, stopped the vehicle to investigate suspected impairment; appellant was arrested and charged with two DUI counts (including a second‑offense highest rate).
- Trial court denied appellant’s suppression motion, found sufficient reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances (wrong‑lane travel at night + weaving), appellant convicted after non‑jury trial, and appealed suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because dash‑cam/photographs show officer could not have seen the conduct he described | Commonwealth: Trooper observed wrong‑lane travel and weaving, providing articulable facts and reasonable inferences to justify stop to investigate DUI | Pitzer: Video and photos show officer could not have seen alleged wrong‑lane travel; suppression required | Court: Denial affirmed — totality (wrong‑lane travel at 1:58 a.m., minimal weaving, road conditions, trooper experience) furnished reasonable suspicion to stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression findings)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 53 A.3d 889 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches/seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 36 A.3d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2012) (three categories of police‑citizen encounters)
- Commonwealth v. Clemens, 66 A.3d 373 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (vehicle stop for motor vehicle violation must serve investigatory purpose; Terry‑type analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 (Pa. 2011) (reasonable suspicion sufficient to investigate certain vehicle defects like windshield obstruction)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 917 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2007) (innocent facts in combination may warrant investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable cause required for stop for failure to drive on right side)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable cause required for stop for failure to use turn signal)
- Commonwealth v. Busser, 56 A.3d 419 (Pa. Super. 2012) (probable cause required for failure to maintain lane stop)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing when reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause is required)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. 2014) (context matters where officer stops motorist for lane violations)
- Commonwealth v. Bailey, 947 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. 2008) (reasonable suspicion can justify stop to investigate mechanical defects or other safety issues)