260 A.3d 263
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Trooper observed Appellant’s white Scion with side and front windows so dark he could not see the operator and followed the vehicle before stopping it for an alleged violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(1) (illegal window tint).
- Photographs and the trooper’s testimony corroborated that viewing into the car was difficult or impossible from his vantage points.
- During the stop the trooper observed signs of narcotics impairment (constricted pupils, heavy breathing, shaking, slurred/rapid speech); a search revealed controlled substances and paraphernalia; Appellant was arrested and later convicted of DUI–controlled substance, possession, and related offenses.
- Appellant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop was illegal because the officer had no basis to conclude the tint was not manufacturer-installed and she also challenged the duration of the stop.
- Trial court denied suppression; Appellant was convicted after a non-jury trial and sentenced. The Superior Court affirmed, holding the stop was supported by probable cause and the duration claim was waived (and, alternatively, justified by independent reasonable suspicion of DUI).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of stop for window tint under §4524(e)(1) | Trooper lacked basis to conclude tint was illegal because manufacturer tint can be that dark and he had no specific training/knowledge about manufacturer tint for the vehicle | Trooper observed a tint so dark he could not see into the car, which establishes probable cause to stop; officer need not rule out statutory exceptions before stopping | Stop was lawful: officer had probable cause because he could not see inside; manufacturer-exception is an affirmative defense for defendant to prove |
| Prolongation of the stop (unlawful detention) | Stop was prolonged without investigating whether the tint was illegal; thus detention exceeded time needed for the traffic purpose and evidence should be suppressed | Any extension was supported by independent, articulable reasonable suspicion of DUI based on Appellant’s behavior and appearance | Claim waived for failure to raise in suppression motion; alternatively, independent reasonable suspicion (and later probable cause) justified prolongation and arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2015) (upholding stop where officer credibly observed tint so dark he could not see inside)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 176 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2017) (probable cause required where tint violation was immediately apparent and no investigatory purpose would be served by stop)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (distinguishing stops requiring reasonable suspicion from those requiring probable cause when no investigatory purpose exists)
- Commonwealth v. Cartagena, 63 A.3d 294 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (tint illegal if officer cannot see inside from his viewpoint; context of officer training and experience relevant)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 81 A.3d 103 (Pa. Super. 2013) (burden on defendant to prove applicability of manufacturer-tint exception)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (U.S. Supreme Court) (officer may not extend a traffic stop beyond its mission absent independent reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (probable cause exists where officer observes a traffic code violation)