Commonwealth v. Garibay
106 A.3d 136
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 19, 2009 Pittsburgh police ran a "Click It or Ticket" seatbelt/safety-equipment checkpoint on Banksville Road; signs warned motorists ~75 yards in advance.
- Appellant drove into the checkpoint; officers observed loud exhaust noise, a strong odor of marijuana, and trance-like behavior; he failed field sobriety testing and was arrested for DUI; a pipe and a positive blood test for marijuana were recovered.
- Appellant moved to suppress, arguing the checkpoint did not comply with Tarbert/Blouse requirements for administrative selection of time and place; trial court denied suppression after two-day hearing where the Commonwealth only presented testimony from Sgt. Richard Howe about PennDOT recommendations and general high-traffic/high-accident justification.
- At trial Appellant was convicted of DUI; he appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
- The Superior Court majority reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding the Commonwealth failed to present the specific testimonial or documentary evidence required to justify the checkpoint’s time and location under Tarbert/Blouse; the Court also held Tarbert/Blouse applies equally to non‑DUI (seatbelt) checkpoints.
- A dissent argued the trial court reasonably found substantial compliance based on PennDOT-sourced location guidance and the checkpoint’s public-safety purpose, and that specific numerical statistics are not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garibay) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth must produce documentary or testimonial evidence specifying reports/data/statistics used to select the checkpoint location | Garibay: Commonwealth offered only general testimony; no specific location statistics were produced, so selection failed Tarbert/Blouse and evidence should be suppressed | Commonwealth: For a non‑DUI seatbelt checkpoint, testimony about PennDOT guidance and officer experience suffices; specific numeric statistics are not required | Majority: Reversed — generalized testimony was insufficient; Tarbert/Blouse location requirement applies to non‑DUI checkpoints and Commonwealth must present specific evidence tying the chosen location to local data/experience to show substantial compliance |
| Whether the Commonwealth must produce documentary or testimonial evidence specifying reports/data/statistics used to select the checkpoint time/duration | Garibay: No evidence explained the time/duration choice, so time prong of Tarbert/Blouse not satisfied | Commonwealth: Timing is less critical for seatbelt checkpoints; purpose-driven selection of busy roadways suffices | Majority: Reversed — Commonwealth failed to meet its burden regarding time/duration selection; time/place criteria must be satisfied under Tarbert/Blouse; dissent would have excused stricter timing proof for seatbelt checkpoints |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (announcing guidelines for constitutionality of roadblocks)
- Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (applies Tarbert standards to systematic roadblocks and underscores safeguards)
- Commonwealth v. Worthy, 957 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2008) (articulates five-factor Tarbert/Blouse test and substantial-compliance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997) (stated Commonwealth must present information specifying DUI-related arrests/accidents for checkpoint location)
- Commonwealth v. Ziegelmeier, 685 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 1996) (held testimony could suffice; clarified documentary-statistics requirement)
- In re J.A.K., 908 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 2006) (applies Tarbert/Blouse to Click It or Ticket / seatbelt checkpoints)
- Commonwealth v. Yastrop, 768 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2001) (upheld checkpoint where officer testified he reviewed PennDOT records tying location to intoxicated-driver routes)