2025 Pa. Super. 29
Pa. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Steven Ahmad Wiggs, while serving as a constable in Perry County, Pennsylvania, was stopped by state police for having blue and red emergency lights on his vehicle.
- Wiggs was cited under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4571 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which authorizes only certain vehicles, such as "emergency vehicles," to use those lights.
- The definition section of the Vehicle Code includes “police vehicles” as emergency vehicles and defines "police officer" as anyone authorized by law to make arrests.
- The trial court ruled that Wiggs, as a constable, was not permitted to use emergency lights on his vehicle.
- The Superior Court Majority affirmed this ruling, finding that constables are not "police officers" for the Vehicle Code’s purposes, and therefore their vehicles are not "police vehicles."
- Judge Stabile dissented, arguing that constables do fit the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus are entitled to use emergency lights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Majority) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a constable is a "police officer" under § 102 and thus may equip his vehicle with emergency lights under § 4571 | Wiggs: Statutes authorize constables to make arrests; fits "police officer" definition, so lights allowed | Commonwealth: Constables lack general police powers, so not "police officers" for this purpose | Constables not "police officers" under § 102; cannot mount emergency lights |
| Whether judicial interpretation should go beyond clear statute language | Wiggs: Statutes unambiguous; no need for interpretation | Commonwealth: Legislative intent supports limiting emergency lights to police/sheriff vehicles | Majority construes "police officer" to mean broader arrest authority only |
| Applicability of Leet and Roose cases to constables' powers under the Vehicle Code | Wiggs: Those cases inapposite; don’t address § 102 definition or emergency lights | Commonwealth: Precedent supports trial court’s reading of constable powers | Court relies on precedent to deny Wiggs' claim |
| Whether the rule of lenity should be applied | Wiggs: Any ambiguity in penal statutes should favor the defendant | Commonwealth: No ambiguity, so rule inapplicable | Majority does not apply rule of lenity |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Act of 147 of 1990, 598 A.2d 985 (Pa. 1991) (Supreme Court states, “constable is a police officer”; supports statutory power of constables)
- Commonwealth v. Leet, 641 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1994) (Addresses arrest authority of sheriffs, not constables, under Vehicle Code)
- Commonwealth v. Roose, 710 A.2d 1129 (Pa. 1998) (Clarifies that constables cannot enforce traffic laws absent statutory authority)