Commonwealth v. Bergamasco
197 A.3d 805
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On Oct. 30, 2016, Ligonier PD Officer Kenneth Burke (on duty, returning from a DUI transport) encountered Sarah Bergamasco at a Latrobe intersection after a blood draw drop-off.
- Bergamasco was stopped in the left-turn lane with signal; when the light turned green both vehicles entered the intersection and Officer Burke contends she failed to yield and nearly struck his patrol car.
- Officer Burke activated his patrol lights and stopped his vehicle in the middle of the intersection; Bergamasco immediately stopped and the vehicles ended up facing each other closely.
- While still in his car or after exiting briefly, Officer Burke observed signs of intoxication and asked whether she had been drinking; Bergamasco admitted to having several drinks.
- Latrobe Police arrived, Officer Keslar took over, conducted field sobriety and breath tests, and arrested Bergamasco for DUI. Bergamasco moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop violated the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA) and the Fourth Amendment.
- Trial court granted suppression, concluding Burke lacked authority under MPJA §8953(a)(5) because Bergamasco did not present an "immediate clear and present danger," and the extrajurisdictional stop substantially intruded on her constitutional rights; Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Bergamasco's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Burke lawfully stopped Bergamasco under the MPJA §8953(a)(5) | Merchant controls: failure to yield can be an "immediate clear and present danger," authorizing extrajurisdictional detention | Stop violated MPJA because Bergamasco did not create an immediate clear and present danger; officer lacked probable cause | Held: Stop violated MPJA — no immediate clear and present danger; stop not authorized |
| Whether suppression is appropriate remedy for MPJA violation | Suppression not required; officer acted to prevent public-safety risk and Bergamasco suffered no prejudice | Exclusionary rule warranted: intrusion was substantial, deviated from MPJA’s purpose, and prejudiced privacy rights | Held: Suppression appropriate — exclusionary rule applied due to significant intrusion and deviation from MPJA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lehman, 870 A.2d 818 (Pa. 2005) (MPJA permits limited extrajurisdictional action when officer is on official business and observes or has probable cause of an offense)
- Commonwealth v. Merchant, 595 A.2d 1135 (Pa. 1991) (failure to yield and dangerously erratic driving can justify extrajurisdictional detention under MPJA)
- Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 2005) (adopted case-by-case approach to exclusion for MPJA violations; consider intrusiveness, deviation from MPJA, and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Henry, 943 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discusses split in approach to suppression for MPJA violations; endorses Chernosky/O’Shea factors)
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa. Super. 1999) (held exclusionary rule applies categorically to evidence gathered after an MPJA violation)
- Commonwealth v. O’Shea, 567 A.2d 1023 (Pa. 1990) (approved flexible, facts-and-circumstances approach to remedies for statutory violations)
- Commonwealth v. Korn, 139 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for suppression appeals)