Com. v. Wright, J., 113 MDA 2016

On June 18, 2015, Officer Robert Bennett observed Junell Wright driving with windows he believed to be tinted below the 70% light transmittance required by PennDOT regulations; Wright refused a tint test.
Officer Bennett estimated the tint allowed 20–50% light transmittance and issued two citations under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4107(b)(2) for operating an unsafe vehicle in violation of 67 Pa. Code § 175.263.
A district magistrate found Wright guilty; she timely appealed pro se to the Court of Common Pleas, missed the first de novo trial, then was convicted after a second de novo summary trial on December 17, 2015.
Wright proceeded pro se on appeal, filed a docketing statement with “Issues to be Raised,” but failed to timely file and serve a Rule 1925(b) concise statement as ordered.
The trial court found Officer Bennett credible, noted Wright admitted awareness of the tint dispute and attempts to obtain an exemption from PennDOT, and concluded the evidence supported conviction under § 4107(b)(2).
The Superior Court affirmed, holding Wright waived most claims for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and alternatively rejecting her reasonable-suspicion and insufficiency arguments on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop and cite for illegal tint	Officer observed tint below regulatory threshold, had ten years' experience identifying dark tints, and attempted a test that Wright refused; these facts supported an investigatory stop and citation	Wright contends officer testimony about training/experience was inadequate to establish reasonable suspicion and that the stop lacked proper justification	Waived for failure to timely file Rule 1925(b); alternatively, court held stop and citation supported by credible officer testimony and permissible under § 4107(b)(2)
Whether evidence was insufficient to convict under § 4107(b)(2) for tint violation	Commonwealth relied on officer’s visual estimation, refusal to allow meter test, and Wright’s admission she sought an exemption (showing awareness)	Wright argued her vehicle had a valid inspection sticker, was manufactured 1993 (claimed grandfathering/exemption), and officer could see into vehicle so different statute might apply	Waived by Rule 1925(b) default; alternatively, sufficiency satisfied—evidence permitted conviction under general equipment statute § 4107(b)(2) despite arguments about inspection sticker or exemption

Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency review principles)
Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (traffic stops must serve an investigatory purpose tied to suspected violation)
Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when a stop lacks investigatory purpose, probable cause is required)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (definition and standard for probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Lindblom, 854 A.2d 604 (Pa. Super. 2004) (probable cause need not be certainty; reasonable inference suffices)
Commonwealth v. Brubaker, 5 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. 2010) (distinguishes § 4524(e)(1) claims from § 4107 equipment-violation prosecutions)
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (Rule 1925(b) compliance required to preserve issues)
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (clarifies waiver consequences for inadequate 1925(b) statements)