Commonwealth v. Bush
166 A.3d 1278
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On November 1, 2015, Trooper Rutter observed Appellant Jesse Ray Bush’s SUV traveling northbound on I‑83 at ~3:15 a.m.; the trooper was southbound in the opposite lane.
- Trooper testified Bush’s SUV had its high beams activated as it passed within ~300 feet; the lights were noticeably brighter than another vehicle and “affected [his] eyes.”
- Trooper turned around, followed northbound to a nearby welcome center (a safe place to stop), observed two crossings of the fog line, and then stopped Bush’s SUV for a high‑beam violation and suspected DUI.
- Bush filed a pretrial motion to suppress, arguing the stop lacked probable cause/reasonable suspicion; suppression was denied after a hearing where the trooper was the sole witness.
- Following a non‑jury trial, Bush was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, DUI, and driving under suspension; he appealed only the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bush) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vehicle stop was lawful | Trooper lacked probable cause/reasonable suspicion to stop for a high‑beam violation because the lanes were divided by guardrail/concrete and the vehicles were not “oncoming” within 500 ft | Trooper credibly observed high beams within 300 ft; statutes require low beams when approaching an oncoming vehicle within 500 ft, and his observation gave probable cause | Stop was lawful: trooper had probable cause to believe a §4306(a) violation occurred |
| Whether §4306(a) applies on divided highways | The statute should be read with exceptions (e.g., school bus §3345(g)) to exempt divided roadways where vehicles are separated | §4306(a)’s plain language covers an approaching oncoming vehicle within 500 ft; divided median does not negate application when glare exists | §4306(a) applies; divided highway does not automatically negate an approaching/oncoming finding |
| Whether Beachey controls (daylight/high‑beam context) | Beachey requires reading §4306 with §4302 and limits §4306 to contexts where glare is possible; argued no glare here due to divider | Here the encounter occurred at night (between sunset and sunrise) and trooper testified the lights affected his eyes, so Beachey is distinguishable | Beachey is distinguishable because this was nighttime and trooper experienced glare; statutory purpose (preventing glare) supports stop |
| Credibility of trooper's testimony about high beams | Trooper’s perception of brightness is subjective/insufficient; conflicting reasons given | Suppression court found trooper credible; appellate review defers to credibility findings supported by the record | Credibility finding upheld; appellate court bound by suppression court’s factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chase, 599 Pa. 80, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (officer may stop a vehicle for observed traffic code violation; probable cause suffices even for minor offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings; appellate courts defer to suppression court’s credibility/findings)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (traffic stops for non‑investigable violations require probable cause rather than mere reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Beachey, 556 Pa. 345, 728 A.2d 912 (Pa. 1999) (§4306 must be read with §4302; §4306 not intended to apply during daylight when glare is impossible)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 627 Pa. 623, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2014) (definition and totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Slattery, 139 A.3d 221 (Pa. Super. 2016) (officer must articulate probable cause when stop is to determine compliance with vehicle code)
- Commonwealth v. Irwin, 769 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2001) (interpretation of §4306; ‘‘approaches’’ means to come nearer in space)
- Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583 (Pa. Super. 2006) (suppression court has sole province to assess witness credibility)