Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 81 A.3d 103

Appellant Manuel Rodriguez is a Pennsylvania constable serving as an independent contractor; his vehicle is privately owned and not a municipal government vehicle.
On January 8, 2012, state police stopped Rodriguez for window tint on his privately owned 2006 BMW; he was warned and cited for violating the sunscreening provision of the Motor Vehicle Code.
The BMW had heavily tinted windows and lacked any government vehicle markings or emergency equipment; Rodriguez carried self-funded liability insurance for the car.
Rodriguez was found guilty of the summary offense after a de novo hearing on May 15, 2012, and sentenced to costs and a $25 fine; a notice of appeal was filed June 14, 2012.
On appeal, Rodriguez argued he was entitled to an exemption as a government vehicle under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(2)(i) and 67 Pa.Code § 175.265(a)(1).
The Commonwealth argued Rodriguez was not a government employee and his car was not a government vehicle, so no exemption applied; the trial court’s ruling was challenged on legal grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodriguez qualifies for exemption under 4524(e)(2)(i).	Rodriguez argues his constable status makes his car a government vehicle.	Commonwealth contends constables are not government employees and the vehicle is not governmental.	No exemption; constables are not government employees and vehicle not governmental.

Ward v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 1078 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (constables are not Commonwealth employees)
Commonwealth v. Roose, 690 A.2d 268 (Pa.Super.1997) (constables are not municipal employees)
Commonwealth v. Brubaker, 5 A.3d 261 (Pa.Super.2010) (statutory interpretation of exemp. provisions not imported from admin code)
Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, A.2d 249 (Pa.Super.2002) (standard of review on de novo appeals from summary convictions)
Commonwealth v. Henderson, 663 A.2d 728 (Pa.Super.1995) (statutory interpretation guidance for first-impression issues)