Commonwealth v. Hlubin
165 A.3d 1
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On Sept. 28–29, 2013 the West Hills DUI Task Force (15 municipal departments) ran a sobriety checkpoint on Steubenville Pike in Robinson Twp.; Sergeant Douglas Ogden (Moon Twp.) coordinated the Task Force.
- Ogden stopped Molly Hlubin at the checkpoint, detected alcohol odor and slurred speech; Hlubin admitted having a shot and a beer and was directed to the testing area.
- Officer Dominic Sicilia administered three field sobriety tests: HGN (6/6 clues), walk‑and‑turn (2/8), one‑legged stand (1/4); Hlubin later consented to a blood draw showing BAC .152%.
- Hlubin was charged with two counts of DUI, moved to suppress evidence on grounds the checkpoint violated the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (ICA) and Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA); the suppression motion was denied and she was convicted after a bench trial.
- On appeal (reargument), Hlubin argued: the Task Force checkpoint failed to comply with the ICA (no required ordinances), the MPJA does not authorize officers to operate checkpoints outside primary jurisdiction absent a contemporaneous request, and there was insufficient probable cause for arrest/chemical test.
- The Superior Court affirmed: the checkpoint’s ICA noncompliance did not automatically invalidate it; the MPJA (42 Pa.C.S. §8953) authorized out‑of‑jurisdiction participation under subsection (a)(3) (requested aid) and suppression was not warranted; Officer Sicilia had probable cause to arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Hlubin's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of checkpoint under ICA | Checkpoint invalid because Task Force municipalities did not adopt ICA ordinances; ICA controls intermunicipal cooperation | ICA noncompliance acknowledged, but ICA does not alone invalidate checkpoint; other statutes apply | ICA formal noncompliance did not automatically invalidate checkpoint; inquiry continues under MPJA and suppression framework |
| Authority under MPJA to act outside primary jurisdiction | MPJA only permits extra‑territorial action in contemporaneous/urgent situations; checkpoint falls outside §8953 scope | MPJA §8953(a)(3) permits acting when an officer has been requested to aid; no contemporaneous requirement; MPJA construed liberally to promote cooperative policing | MPJA authorizes participation; Robinson Twp. requested aid and Ogden was authorized to act under §8953(a)(3) (and possibly §8953(a)(4)) |
| Remedy for statutory violation (suppression) | ICA/MPJA violation requires suppression of evidence | Even if MPJA irregularities exist, suppression is discretionary; apply O’Shea factors (intrusiveness, deviation from Act, prejudice) | Suppression not warranted: checkpoint minimally intrusive, served MPJA purposes, and defendants suffered little prejudice |
| Probable cause for DUI arrest and chemical test | Officer lacked sufficient grounds; blood draw unlawful without probable cause | Officer observations, admissions, and FST results provided probable cause to arrest and request chemical test | Probable cause existed based on totality of circumstances (odor, slurred speech, admission, FSTs); blood test admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Merchant, 595 A.2d 1135 (Pa. 1991) (MPJA expands and regulates extra‑territorial police authority to promote cooperative policing)
- Commonwealth v. O'Shea, 567 A.2d 1023 (Pa. 1989) (factors for suppression when MPJA violations occur: intrusiveness, deviation, prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Worthy, 957 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2008) (sobriety checkpoints are reasonable under Fourth Amendment given modest intrusion and strong public interest)
- Commonwealth v. Angel, 946 A.2d 115 (Pa. Super. 2008) (probable cause for DUI based on officer observations and experience)
- Commonwealth v. Hilliar, 943 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2008) (smell of alcohol and slurred speech can establish probable cause for DUI)