Commonwealth v. Johnson
202 A.3d 125
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On Nov. 5, 2015, Trooper Jason Kaczor followed Travelle Johnson on I-83 for about five miles and used his patrol speedometer to clock Johnson at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone.
- Dash cam video did not clearly show the vehicle crossing the fog line; the trooper testified he stopped Johnson for crossing the fog line (swerving), not for speeding.
- During the stop officers found marijuana and related paraphernalia; Johnson was charged with possession (small amount), possession of paraphernalia, and DUI (drugs).
- At suppression, the trial court found the trooper’s account of swerving not credible, focused on the trooper’s subjective reason for the stop, and concluded the stop was unlawful despite acknowledging the speeding evidence.
- The Commonwealth appealed; a three-judge panel affirmed suppression, then the full Superior Court (en banc) reversed and remanded, holding the stop was objectively justified by probable cause for speeding.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was lawful where trooper timed defendant at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone | Speeding (70 in 55) provided probable cause to stop; calibration not required to support a stop | The trooper’s speed reading lacked certification/calibration and there was no immediate activation of lights; trooper claimed he stopped for swerving | Court held the objective fact of speeding provided probable cause; the trial court erred by relying on the trooper’s subjective motive |
| Whether speedometer calibration/certification is required to establish probable cause for a stop | Calibration/certification is unnecessary to establish probable cause to stop for speeding | Certification is required to prove speeding for conviction, so it should bear on probable cause | Court held calibration is required for conviction but not for establishing probable cause to stop; admissibility standards for guilt differ from probable cause analysis |
| Whether the trooper’s subjective reason for the stop affects Fourth Amendment analysis | Officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant; objective circumstances control | Stop was unlawful because the court found the trooper testified he stopped for swerving and did not immediately signal for a speed stop | Court applied objective Fourth Amendment test (Whren/Martin/Brigham City) and rejected the trial court’s subjective-motive inquiry |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest for DUI/possession based on odor and indicia of impairment | Trooper smelled burnt marijuana and observed indicia of impairment — supporting arrest | Trial court made no findings on arrest probable cause because it suppressed the stop | Superior Court declined to decide arrest probable cause in first instance, remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is an objective inquiry; subjective motive irrelevant)
- Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment review focuses on objective assessment of officer’s actions)
- Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985) (Fourth Amendment analysis turns on objective circumstances confronting officer)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective intent of officer does not invalidate objectively justified Fourth Amendment actions)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2014) (reaffirming objective inquiry for Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2012) (on review of suppression, consider defendant’s evidence and uncontradicted prosecution evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2004) (speedometer calibration required for conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562 (Pa. Super. 2013) (facts relied on to show probable cause need not meet admissibility standards for conviction; probable cause is lower threshold)