Commonwealth v. Maguire
175 A.3d 288
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On May 20, 2015 Trooper Corey Beaver (PSP) conducted a Level Two regulatory inspection of Jeffrey Maguire’s commercial tri‑axle dump truck during a scheduled systematic commercial vehicle inspection at the Clinton County landfill under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4704(a)(2).
- During the inspection Trooper Beaver smelled alcohol on Maguire’s breath, asked him to exit the vehicle, observed a cooler containing three cans of beer, and Maguire admitted he had “drank a beer.”
- Trooper Beaver administered three field sobriety tests; Maguire failed two and was transported for blood testing. The Commonwealth then charged Maguire with multiple DUI and related counts.
- Maguire moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop/inspection violated the Tarbert/Blouse checkpoint guidelines because the inspection program did not comply with those standards.
- The trial court granted suppression. The Commonwealth appealed, raising (1) whether Tarbert/Blouse applies to commercial vehicle inspections under § 4704(a)(2) and (2) whether the odor of alcohol provided probable cause post‑inspection.
- The Superior Court reversed: it held commercial trucking inspections fall within the closely regulated‑industry exception (Burger/Petroll), so Tarbert/Blouse do not apply, and that the officer had probable cause to pursue DUI enforcement after detecting alcohol.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tarbert/Blouse checkpoint guidelines apply to commercial vehicle inspections under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4704(a)(2) | Maguire: Tarbert/Blouse apply to systematic checkpoints including commercial inspections; this inspection failed to substantially comply and therefore was unconstitutional | Commonwealth: Commercial vehicle inspections are administrative searches in a closely regulated industry (trucking) and governed by Burger/Petroll, not Tarbert/Blouse | Held: Tarbert/Blouse do not apply; § 4704 inspections fall within the closely regulated‑industry exception and satisfy Burger/Petroll requirements |
| Whether officer had probable cause after the lawful administrative inspection to detain/search for DUI | Maguire: Evidence should be suppressed because the initial stop was unlawful (Tarbert/Blouse noncompliance) | Commonwealth: Even if administrative, odor of alcohol, admission, cooler with beer, and failed field sobriety tests provided probable cause | Held: Officer had probable cause based on odor, admission, physical evidence, and failed tests; post‑inspection detention and DUI investigation were lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (establishes three‑part test for warrantless administrative inspections of closely regulated industries)
- Commonwealth v. Petroll, 738 A.2d 993 (Pa. 1999) (applies Burger to trucking; recognizes trucking as closely regulated and analyzes Burger prongs)
- Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (plurality) (checkpoint guidelines later adopted and developed in Blouse)
- Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (adopts Tarbert checkpoint criteria for constitutionally acceptable roadblocks)
- Commonwealth v. Garibay, 106 A.3d 136 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applied Tarbert/Blouse to non‑DUI checkpoints and emphasized compliance requirements)