Com. v. Wilson, W.
237 A.3d 572
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- On Nov. 28, 2018, a Pennsylvania State Police corporal driving south on I‑83 observed a white Ford pickup (Wilson) in the left lane traveling about 58 mph (speed limit 55). The corporal said Wilson was "barely" passing traffic and was going slightly faster than traffic in the right lane.
- The corporal "chirped" his siren to request Wilson move right; Wilson did not immediately move. The corporal then activated lights and siren; Wilson pulled to the left shoulder and seconds later complied with the corporal's direction to pull to the right in front of the patrol car.
- The corporal approached, smelled marijuana, conducted field sobriety testing (limited by Wilson's hip), arrested Wilson for DUI—controlled substances, and later blood tests showed marijuana metabolites and oxycodone.
- Wilson moved to suppress evidence from the stop; the suppression court denied the motion. At a stipulated bench trial the court convicted Wilson of two counts of DUI (controlled substance) and one count for failing to drive in the right lane (75 Pa.C.S.A. §3313(d)(1)).
- On appeal Wilson argued (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the lane‑use conviction because he was lawfully passing or traveling faster than right‑lane traffic, and (2) the stop was unlawful because the officer lacked specific and articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion when he activated lights/siren. The Superior Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Wilson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3313(d)(1) (failure to drive in right lane) | Wilson failed to move right when signaled; lane violation supported conviction | Wilson was overtaking/passing and traveling faster than right‑lane flow—exceptions under §3313(d)(1)(i)–(ii) | Reversed as to lane‑use conviction: evidence insufficient because Wilson was passing and traveling faster than right‑lane traffic |
| Validity of traffic stop / suppression (when seizure occurred and reasonable suspicion) | Stop occurred when Wilson pulled in front on right; corporal had reasonable suspicion based on Wilson's failure to comply and driving conduct | Activation of lights/siren and ensuing conduct constituted a seizure; officer lacked specific and articulable facts to reasonably suspect criminal activity | Reversed suppression ruling: the activation of emergency lights/siren constituted a seizure under Livingstone; officer had no specific and articulable facts to justify stop, so evidence should have been suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Livingstone, 174 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2017) (activation of emergency lights/siren can constitute a seizure; inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 (Pa. 2011) (an officer must point to specific and articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances and the reliability of the officer's information)
- Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 836 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2003) (appellate review: defer to suppression court's factual findings but review legal conclusions de novo)