Commonwealth v. Busser
56 A.3d 419
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Busser was stopped on December 10, 2010 after an ambulance with siren activated approached from the opposite direction on North George Street in York.
- Officer Pitts pulled to the right before the ambulance and signaled Busser to pull over; Busser complied but did not move to the curb.
- Officer Pitts intended to cite Busser for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3325.
- A scent of alcohol was detected and Busser was subsequently charged with DUI-related offenses after a breath test.
- The trial court granted Busser’s motion to suppress the evidence, and the Commonwealth appeals asserting § 3325(a) was misinterpreted and that probable cause was required for the stop.
- The appellate court reverses, holding that § 3325(a) requires three conjunctive actions and that probable cause supported the stop under the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3325(a) require pulling to the curb and stopping? | Commonwealth argues § 3325(a) requires all three actions. | Busser contends the statute allows discretion under the circumstances. | Statute requires yield, pull to curb, and stop. |
| Is probable cause required to stop a vehicle under § 3325(a)? | Commonwealth maintains probable cause is not required if stop is lawful under § 6308(b). | Busser argues no probable cause was shown for the stop under the circumstances. | Probable cause was required and was shown by articulable facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040 (Pa. Super. 2012) (guides de novo review of legal conclusions from the trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (probable cause needed for vehicle stop when investigation lacks investigatory purpose relevant to the violation)
- Commonwealth v. Sands, 887 A.2d 261 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinction between DUI investigations and other MVCs for stopping standards)
- Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 A.3d 875 (Pa. Super. 2011) (construction of conjunctive 'and' in statutory text)
- Annenberg v. Commonwealth, 562 Pa. 581 (2000) (statutory language governs interpretation when unambiguous)