Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt.
208 A.3d 1032
Pa.2019Background
- On Sept. 29, 2013, Molly Hlubin was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in Robinson Township and arrested after Moon Township Sgt. Douglas Ogden (a member/coordinator of a multi‑municipal DUI task force) initiated the stop and observed signs of intoxication.
- The task force comprised officers from ~15 municipalities and operated routinely; it had a policy manual and received grant funding, but most member municipalities had not adopted ICA ordinances authorizing intergovernmental cooperation.
- The Commonwealth failed to show a joint agreement and ordinance adoption required by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (ICA); Robinson Township produced a 2003 resolution but other municipalities had not enacted ordinances under 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 2303–2317.
- The Superior Court (en banc) held ICA noncompliance did not invalidate the checkpoint because the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a), authorizes extraterritorial policing under its exceptions (esp. § 8953(a)(3) and (a)(4)).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed: it held § 8953(a) exceptions did not authorize prearranged multi‑jurisdictional sobriety checkpoints in the absence of an ICA agreement, and suppressed the evidence obtained at the checkpoint.
Issues
| Issue | Hlubin's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MPJA exceptions permit officers to leave primary jurisdiction to staff prearranged multi‑jurisdictional sobriety checkpoints without ICA agreements | Such task‑force checkpoints are a municipal government function; absent ICA ordinances/joint agreement, extraterritorial policing is unauthorized | MPJA (specific) governs extraterritorial police action; §8953(a) exceptions (aid/consent) permit such deployments without ICA formalities | Reversed: §8953(a) does not authorize officers to cross lines for prearranged multi‑jurisdictional checkpoints; ICA compliance required for that ongoing cooperation |
| Proper interpretation of §8953(a)(3) (requested to aid or otherwise probable cause to believe aid needed) — does it require contemporaneous criminal activity? | Request/aid must be tied to an ongoing criminal episode (probable cause element) | §8953(a)(3) permits aid upon any request or when an officer otherwise believes aid is needed—no contemporaneous crime requirement | §8953(a)(3) requires probable‑cause nexus: both the request and the "otherwise" clause must be read to incorporate the probable‑cause element (i.e., related to ongoing criminal activity) |
| Applicability of §8953(a)(4) (prior consent of chief to enter another jurisdiction for duties arising from matters in officer's primary jurisdiction) | N/A (Hlubin argued MPJA exceptions do not apply) | §8953(a)(4) could apply because Robinson Township chief signed an authorization form consenting to task‑force duties | §8953(a)(4) inapplicable because Ogden did not enter to perform duties arising from official matters in his primary jurisdiction; consent clause doesn't cover prearranged checkpoint duties here |
| Remedy for MPJA/ICA noncompliance — is suppression warranted or should a case‑by‑case (O'Shea) test be applied? | Suppression required for evidence obtained at unauthorized checkpoint | At most a technical violation; O’Shea three‑factor test should allow admission (no suppression) | Suppression required: applying O'Shea factors (intrusiveness, deviation from MPJA, prejudice) the Court found all factors favor suppression and ordered exclusion of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Merchant v. Commonwealth, 528 Pa. 161, 595 A.2d 1135 (Pa. 1991) (MPJA promotes public safety while preserving local police accountability)
- O'Shea v. Commonwealth, 523 Pa. 384, 567 A.2d 1023 (Pa. 1989) (approved three‑factor remedy test for MPJA violations)
- McCandless v. Commonwealth, 538 Pa. 286, 648 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1994) (suppression required where officer lacked statutory extraterritorial authority)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Licensing, 588 Pa. 429, 905 A.2d 438 (Pa. 2006) (MPJA limits extraterritorial enforcement; remedy can invalidate administrative sanctions when officer lacked authority)
- Marconi v. Commonwealth, 619 Pa. 401, 64 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2013) (sheriffs lack statutory authority under MVC to conduct sobriety checkpoints; suppression appropriate)
- Dobbins v. Commonwealth, 594 Pa. 71, 934 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2007) (suppressed evidence where actor lacked statutory investigatory authority)
- Roose v. Commonwealth, 551 Pa. 410, 710 A.2d 1129 (Pa. 1998) (constables lack authority to enforce motor vehicle laws; evidence suppressed)
- Price v. Commonwealth, 543 Pa. 403, 672 A.2d 280 (Pa. 1996) (FBI lacked statutory authority to enforce MVC violations; evidence suppressed)
- McKinley v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 576 Pa. 85, 838 A.2d 700 (Pa. 2003) (officer lacked authority beyond territorial jurisdiction; administrative sanction invalidated)
- Mathis v. Commonwealth, 643 Pa. 351, 173 A.3d 699 (Pa. 2017) (distinguishing instances where suppression is required for lack of statutory authority)