Commonwealth v. Slattery
139 A.3d 221
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Trooper Panchik observed Brian Slattery drive a Dodge Durango and follow it as it moved from the right lane into a left-turn-only lane and then turned left onto Industrial Road.
- Trooper noticed a large nontransparent sticker on the Durango’s rear window.
- The trooper testified Slattery activated his signal just as or just before moving into the other lane and that Slattery was traveling under 35 mph.
- Trooper stopped Slattery, observed signs of impairment, and arrested him for DUI; Slattery admitted his license was suspended.
- Slattery moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked probable cause because the trooper misstated 75 Pa.C.S. § 3334 as requiring a 100-foot signal for lane changes; the trial court denied suppression and convicted Slattery after a bench trial.
- The Superior Court concluded the trooper lacked probable cause to stop Slattery for violating § 3334 or § 4542 and reversed, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Slattery's Argument | Trooper/Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3334(a) requires signaling a minimum distance when changing lanes | Slattery: § 3334(a)’s "move from one traffic lane to another" has no minimum-distance requirement; the 100-foot rule in § 3334(b) applies only to turns | Trooper: Believed § 3334 requires signaling at least 100 feet before changing lanes and stopped vehicle for failure to do so | Held: Court agreed with Slattery — § 3334(b)’s 100-foot rule applies to turns, not lane changes; trooper lacked probable cause for stop |
| Whether the stop was supported by probable cause based on a rear-window decal (§ 4542) | Slattery: Trooper did not articulate facts showing the decal materially obstructed the driver’s view, so no probable cause under § 4542 | Trooper: Also cited the large nontransparent rear-window sticker as basis for stop | Held: Court held trooper lacked probable cause under § 4542 because he gave no testimony on how the decal materially impaired vision |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 567 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for denial of suppression motion)
- Spieler v. Commonwealth, 887 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2005) (officer must articulate facts supporting probable cause to believe a vehicle code was violated)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable cause required where alleged violations do not need further investigation)
- Feczko v. Commonwealth, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (same principle regarding probable cause for vehicle-code violations)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 14 A.3d 97 (Pa. Super. 2011) (officer must provide facts showing an object materially impaired vision under obstructing-window statute)
- Benton v. Commonwealth, 655 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Super. 1995) (insufficient testimony that hanging object materially impaired vision warrants suppression)
- Felty v. Commonwealth, 662 A.2d 1102 (Pa. Super. 1995) (same principle regarding obstruction of view)
- Garcia v. Commonwealth, 859 A.2d 820 (Pa. Super. 2004) (minor, momentary deviations may be de minimis and insufficient for probable cause to stop)