Com. v. Stair, R.
Com. v. Stair, R. No. 1217 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- On August 1, 2015 the West Hills DUI Task Force operated a DUI checkpoint in a Kohl’s parking lot on Steubenville Pike in Robinson Township; Sergeant Ogden selected the date, time and site based on prior local experience and event timing (a Luke Bryan concert).
- Ogden presented multi-year data showing a disproportionate number of Robinson Township DUIs occurred on Steubenville Pike (e.g., 60 of 107 in 2013; 70 of 131 in 2014) and prior checkpoint arrests on that road.
- Officer Zilles contacted Richard Stair at the checkpoint, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes and mumbling, and Stair admitted consuming alcohol; Stair was escorted to testing officers.
- Officer Mermon administered the walk‑and‑turn (5/8 clues) and one‑leg‑stand (1/4 clues), smelled alcohol, concluded impairment, and arrested Stair; Stair later testified he had consumed beers at the concert.
- Stair filed a suppression motion challenging (1) whether the checkpoint location was a route likely to be traveled by intoxicated drivers and (2) whether the Task Force had authority to conduct the checkpoint; the suppression court denied relief and Stair was convicted after a stipulated non‑jury trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Stair) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether checkpoint location satisfied Blouse/Tarbert requirement that it be on a route likely traveled by intoxicated drivers | Presented multi‑year DUI/arrest statistics and local officer input showing Steubenville Pike (mile‑and‑a‑half stretch) had disproportionate DUI activity | Argued Commonwealth needed more precise, spot‑specific arrest data at the exact block/location of the checkpoint | Court held statistics for the roadway segment satisfied the requirement; precision to the exact block was not required (affirmed suppression court) |
| Whether West Hills DUI Task Force had jurisdictional authority under ICA and MPJA to operate the checkpoint | Argued intergovernmental cooperation and MPJA authorized the Task Force and officers to assist beyond primary jurisdiction | Argued Task Force lacked required municipal ordinances under ICA and MPJA did not apply absent contemporaneous request or ongoing criminal activity | Issue waived because not raised at suppression hearing; alternatively, following precedent, MPJA §8953(a)(3) authorizes such assistance and the checkpoint was valid (claim fails) |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible at DUI stops; warrantless blood tests not)
- Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (Tarbert/Blouse guidelines for constitutionality of DUI roadblocks, including location/time selection criteria)
- Commonwealth v. Menichino, 154 A.3d 797 (Pa. Super. 2017) (clarifies that location specificity refers to the area/road where checkpoint sits, not an exact block)
- Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Ziegelmeier, 685 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 1996) (upholds roadblock where selection based on traffic volume, DUI arrests and accidents)