Commonwealth v. Marconi, 619 Pa. 401

In Sept. 2007, Forest and Warren County sheriffs established a temporary sobriety checkpoint in Forest County, stopped Appellee, and he was arrested for DUI after testing.
Section 6308(b) of the Vehicle Code authorizes police officers in a systematic program of vehicle checks to enforce the title, including DUI provisions.
Appellee challenged the sheriffs’ authority to make suspicionless stops, arguing sheriffs are not “police officers” authorized to conduct independent investigations or checkpoints.
Commonwealth relied on Leet’s holding that duly trained sheriffs may enforce Vehicle Code provisions based on common-law powers to arrest in their presence, and argued there is no Vehicle Code provision abrogating this authority.
Courts below suppressed evidence and treated Kline as not dispositive on independent checkpoint authority; the issue framed as whether sheriffs may independently establish and run sobriety checkpoints.
The Supreme Court held that sheriffs do not have authority to independently establish and conduct suspicionless sobriety checkpoints, though Leet’s framework of sheriffs enforcing the Vehicle Code within common-law peacekeeping powers remains acknowledged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do sheriffs have authority to independently establish and run suspicionless sobriety checkpoints?	Marconi argues yes, under Leet and Kline authority.	Commonwealth argues no, sheriffs lack independent enforcement power absent express statutory authorization.	No; sheriffs may not independently establish suspicionless checkpoints.
Do Leet and Kline authorize sheriffs to enforce the Vehicle Code via checkpoints?	Marconi relies on Leet/Kline as recognizing sheriff enforcement powers.	Commonwealth contends Leet and Kline support broader sheriff enforcement of Vehicle Code.	Leet/Kline do not authorize independent checkpoint authority for sheriffs.
Does the Vehicle Code’s police officer definition extend to sheriffs for checkpoint authority?	Marconi suggests broad inclusion under §102 for arrest power.	Commonwealth maintains Vehicle Code defines police officer in a way that may cover sheriffs.	Sheriffs are not “police officers” under the Vehicle Code for checkpoint authority.

Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89 (Pa. 1994) (Sheriffs’ common-law arrest power and lack of abrogation by Vehicle Code; focus on presence-based breaches of the peace.)
Commonwealth v. Kline, 559 Pa. 646 (Pa. 1999) (Sheriff training compared to police; sheriffs may enforce Vehicle Code with sufficient training.)
Commonwealth v. Dobbins, 594 Pa. 71 (Pa. 2007) (Independent sheriff investigations implicating constitutional rights require statutory authorization.)
Kopko v. Miller, 586 Pa. 170 (Pa. 2006) (Sheriff arrest powers limited; Leet framework extended to certain enforcement contexts.)
Commonwealth v. Blouse, 531 Pa. 167 (Pa. 1992) ( DUI roadblocks as investigatory but constrained by Fourth Amendment safeguards.)
Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277 (Pa. 1987) (DUI checkpoint framework with procedural controls.)