Com. v. Spence, O.
2023 Pa. Super. 22
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2023Background
- On July 27, 2020 officers manning a daytime safety checkpoint observed a silver sedan (driven by Spence) make a U‑turn and subsequent left turn without using a turn signal; troopers pursued the vehicle.
- Troopers caught up, stopped the vehicle, and detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the car; Trooper Nowicki asked Spence about recent marijuana use and Spence said he had smoked about four hours earlier.
- Spence performed poorly on field sobriety tests; officers discovered the vehicle registration and driver’s license were suspended and Spence lacked valid insurance. He initially indicated consent to testing but later refused at the jail.
- Spence filed a pretrial suppression motion seeking to suppress the stop and his statements; the suppression court credited Trooper Nowicki’s testimony and denied suppression.
- After a stipulated non‑jury trial incorporating the suppression hearing testimony, the trial court convicted Spence of DUI—controlled substance impaired ability (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2)) and related offenses and sentenced him to 72 hours to 6 months’ incarceration plus probation.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, rejecting Spence’s challenges to the stop, admissibility of statements (Miranda), sufficiency and weight of the evidence for the DUI conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Spence's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the traffic stop | Trooper observed two turn‑signal violations, providing probable cause to stop under the vehicle code | No lawful basis to stop: turning away from checkpoint alone does not justify intervention | Stop lawful — probable cause existed based on observed failures to signal (and second violation) |
| Admissibility of statements (Miranda) | Questions during the traffic stop were part of an investigative detention, not custodial interrogation, so Miranda not required | Trooper elicited incriminating statements about drug use without Miranda; statements should be suppressed | No custodial interrogation; Miranda not required. (Court also held any error would have been harmless.) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (§ 3802(d)(2)) | Circumstantial evidence (odor of marijuana, admission of recent use, poor FST performance, officer training/observations) proved impairment to a degree that rendered Spence unsafe to drive | Insufficient: no blood/chemical test, no drugs recovered, minimal evidence of bad driving | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance |
| Weight of the evidence | Trooper’s testimony was credible and the finder of fact may credit it; weight challenges are for trial court | Verdict shocks the conscience; Commonwealth failed to prove impairment | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; verdict was not against the weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (§ 3802(d)(2) does not require drug measurement in blood and expert testimony is not mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Scavello, 734 A.2d 386 (Pa. 1999) (failing to go through a roadblock alone does not justify police intervention)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 935 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2007) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa.Super. 2015) (weight‑of‑evidence standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Clinton, 905 A.2d 1026 (Pa.Super. 2006) (distinguishing encounter, investigative detention, and custodial detention)