*2 CAVANAUGH, HESTER, Before WIEAND and JJ. CAVANAUGH, Judge. and fine appeal
This a conviction case involves 3365(b), provision for violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. Appellant in a zone. raises two prohibits speeding school (1) court lower erred appeal: issues whether zone, in a failing speeding a citation for school quash not her fair give did notice allegedly where citation (2) supposed she was have committed what violation officer to allowing court erred whether lower limit in a testify that over appellant testimony by obtained school zone where find that the citation Although device. notice,” we con- gave appellant than “fair are amply more state agree strained to with the current testify the law officer cannot as to his or is that her in a school zone. We personal observation reverse. *3 approximately
The of this case are as At facts follows. 1990, 12, appellant p.m. Wednesday, September 3:25 Pittsburgh Regina Officer Martin in the stopped by Police section, Hill a city’s Squirrel Beacon of the 5600 block of St. statutorily required The school zone had the school zone. speed during the zone signs posted which declared gave 15 M.P.H. Police Officer Martin school hours was citation, having personally a traffic after observed appellant of car. Appellant the rate of was subse- zone a guilty found a school after quently Pitts- hearing Magistrate Harrington Chief before Following Traffic this sum- burgh appeal Court. novo de conviction, convicted after a again she was mary Hon. L. of the hearing Raymond Alleghe- before the Schieb appeal of Common Pleas. This followed. County Court ny us is The first issue would have address fair of the gave appellant traffic citation notice whether the committed, the alleged to have conduct she was driven, or the alleged applicable she to have which argues impermis that the citation Appellant limit. unclear, as Police Officer Martin abbreviated sibly
463 and the alleged at which she was have driven Appellant argues limit. that such abbrevi- applicable deficient, are the Rules of Criminal Proce- ations both under refers Appellant dures and under the Motor Vehicle Code. to Pa.R.Crim.P of Citation:” us “Contents (a) contain: Every citation shall
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] (5) A specific citation of the section and subsection of together violated, allegedly the statute ordinance summary with a advise facts sufficient charged the nature ... defendant of offense (emphasis appellant’s). Appellant also calls our attention to Code, as fol- provides Motor Vehicle lows:
In every speed provision subchapter violation of a except (relating violation of section 3361 speed), specify vehicles at safe the citation shall alleged at which the defendant is to have driven and the applicable speed limit. think full justice 3366. We it does to this
argument to state that it is without merit. completely
“Although specific citation must include section of the violated, statute it need only summary show facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the Weed, Commonwealth v. charged.” offense Pa.D & C (C.P.Cumb.1977), Commonwealth v. 3rd 151 quoted Stahl, 507, 513, (1982). A.2d involved, The in large, boldfaced, citation No. reads capítol top letters at the “TRAFFIC CITATION.” *4 is citation divided into a number of boxes wherein the dispensing pertinent officer writes down information such address, as the driver’s name and the charge, nature the conditions, vehicle, the the make and year the 16, In dispensing signature. officer’s box number enti- “Charge,” tled Officer Martin filled in “EXCEEDING 19, SPEED LIMIT.” In box number entitled “Nature of Offense,” Martin Officer wrote “IN SCHOOL ZONE App P25 Allow 15 25-26.” It is to conclude only reasonable that this is fair notice that the traffic citation had been exceeding issued for limit at approximately M.P.H. in a school zone where the limit allowed was Moreover, pertinent 15 M.P.H. it is to note that in box 39, Sec.,” entitled numbers 38 and “Sec.” “Sub Officer “b,” in Martin also the “3365” and the section and wrote Motor dealing of the Vehicle Code subsection in a school zone. The did not argument appellant receive “fair notice” is meritless. defective, if
Even we had found the citation we could appellant’s ground. not find in favor on that When a defects, citation contains we must look to Pa.R.Crim.P. 70 Dept. Trans. v. consequences. for the Palmer, (1984). A.2d alia, inter provides, Pa.R.Crim.P. 90 that a Citation cannot prejudice rights be dismissed absent to the of the defen dant: discharged
A defendant shall not nor shall a case be be dismissed of a defect in the form or content of a because summons, warrant, citation, or complaint, a defect unless proceedings Chapter, the defendant summary raises the defect before the conclusion of the trial and prejudicial rights defect defendant. Palmer, supra. see also added); (emphasis
Pa.R.Crim.P. 90 argued Although appellant explicitly has that she has abbreviations,1 prejudice by suffered the officer’s we find prejudice case that no such occurred. As we discussed supra, imagination it strains the appellant believe surprised any way significance about meaning as a or the of the abbreviations Citation whole particular. appellant
The second issue have us address is would testify solely officer can based visual whether exceeding that an observation automobile asserts that 75 Pa. limit in a school zone. The argument perhaps implicit that she did not 1. It is in the notice.” receive "fair *5 en banc Com- in our decision interpreted C.S.A. § Martorano, A.2d 1229 monwealth rule in her are constrained (1989), us to favor. We compels agree. in 75 com- Pa.C.S.A. 3368 established legislature Our speed timing for the utilization of guidelines prehensive pertinent legislature, It is to note that the devices. did under circum- enacting guidelines, the not indicate what Martorano presented our Court with a they apply. stances impression: guide- of first does the existence of the case require guidelines lines their use or do the mandatory indicate that if the decide to use a merely police guide- that they according device must use it lines.
In timed a greatly officer driver exceeding limit with a VASCAR zone, in a mile an Ross twenty-five Betsy device hour onto Bridge ramp ap- exit Interstate 95. driver was prehended and issued a traffic citation for his violation of 3362(a)(3), which reads: 3362. Maximum limits
(a) General hazard exists Except special when rule.— requires compliance lower with section (relating speed), vehicle at safe the limits under this specified this subsection established no subchapter speeds per- shall be maximum lawful son shall at a in excess of the drive vehicle limits: following speed
(1) district. per 35 miles hour urban (2) per 55 miles hour other locations.
(3) Any other maximum limit established under subchapter. in traffic court and subsequently The driver was convicted to have de novo hearing his in the court of right exercised hearing, pleas. common At original accuracy to find certificate of unable officer. The Court operated by VASCAR unit and he copy objection, a Xerox over driver’s accepted However, once convicted. for reasons do again here, Opinion not concern us in its acknowledged Court the Xerox and the copy was inadmissible VASCAR *6 sustained properly competent evidence could not be Notwithstanding, the found that the police evidence. Court officer’s sufficient evidence inde- eyewitness testimony was reading support appellant’s of the VASCAR to pendent conviction. en banc panel of this Court faced for the appeal,
On whether, 3368, light police first time the issue of a § grounds is sufficient opinion testimony upon officer’s which to 75 Pa.C.S.A. speeding pursuant a violation base 3368, 3362(a)(3). Before the enactment of a § § render always competent opinion officer had been his speed, only a vehicle’s to the fact he must subject have Martorano, observed the vehicle. See Commonwealth v. 151, 163, 1229, 1235 (1989)(Johnson, 563 A.2d Pa.Super. 387 v. J., Monosky, Commonwealth 360 Dissenting); Pa.Super. Commonwealth v. 481, 485, 1192, (1987); 520 A.2d 1194 259, 271, 1113, 389 A.2d 1119 Reynolds, Pa.Super. 256 v. (1978); 65, 70, Forrey, Commonwealth Pa.Super. 172 92 However, decision,2 233, (1952). in a 5-3 found A.2d 235 the recent amendments to 3368 1985 and 1986 legislative intent that devices were indicated a mandatory. Martorano, 157, supra, Pa.Super. 387 at 563 As the declared in that case: A.2d at 1232. Court legislature conclude that enacted de- because [W]e regarding use and mainte- specific tailed and instructions in this it nance of devices for us to sanction impermissible would be circumvention Therefore, that in order to provisions. of those we hold a conviction under 75 Pa.C.S. 3362 the sustain present must evidence which would satis- Commonwealth of 75 Pa.C.S. 3368. As a conse- fy requirements hold that a officer’s uncorrob- quence, we also Melinson, participate in the consideration or decision of 2. J. did not Martorano.
467 support is insufficient to as to testimony orated 3362. violating Section conviction for v. distinguish Commonwealth Id. The Court went on to testimony of opinion a case which stated Monosky, sufficient to speeder observed police officers who statute. Monosky, motor vehicle establish violation because it involved indicated, distinguishable Court requires drivers a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § specificity included no drive at safe Id. Pa.Super. speed. actual to the driver’s respect utilized 157-158, 1232-1233. The Court also 563 A.2d at reckless involving a case reasoning distinguishing similar Dandar, Pa.Super. driving, (1977). at 160 supra, A.2d 319 n. 5. A.2d at n. 1233-1234 *7 3362(a) Martorano, (3) in subsection We note that § Court, prohibits person and this subsection before the limit speed maximum a vehicle at other driving subchapter The sub- subchapter. under this established F of the Motor Vehicle (3) subchapter to is section refers us is a 3365(b), today, section before Code, the of which § is not restricted to since Martorano’s Thus, holding part. in limits set Sub- speed includes the maximum but § holding restrict its to F, to it would be unreasonable chapter in 3362(a)(3) conjunc- be used always must 3362. Section § F Subchapter which establishes section of tion with another although Martorano Indeed, the limit. speed a maximum speed maximum exactly which does not make clear opinion violated, it ap- allegedly F the driver Subchapter in limit note that 3365(a). to pertinent It that it was pears Transportation 3365(a) Department the provides speed to set maximum power the authorities with local constituting structure bridges or other elevated limits on 3365(a). This is highway. See of a part driver Marto- in limit the the maximum undoubtedly Ross Betsy off the as he came rano allegedly violated 95.3 Bridge ramp exit onto Interstate admitting although the Martorano, suggests Monosky, supra, is more strength However, Martorano. case than analogous reasoning principled does make a dis Commonwealth’s accepted it policy tinction because relies on rather than statutory interpretation. The Commonwealth canons in that since the rate of zones is very *8 speed relating presence regulations of to the administration of that the legislative timing in intent that such de- devices 3368 indicated mandatorily by law officials to be used enforcement vices were 3368(e) following: speed Section states the determine violations. mechanical, (e) requirements for use of electrical and Distance Mechanical, may electrical or electronic devices electronic devices.— speed feet to time rate of of vehicles within 500 after not be used sign indicating speed. limitation on a decrease This limit signs speed timing apply speed limit devices shall not the use of limits, zones, bridge indicating and elevated structure school grade speed and work zone limits. limits hazardous actions consistent remanded for Case reversed. Order relinquished. Jurisdiction opinion. J., dissenting opinion. WIEAND, files a dissenting: WIEAND, Judge, judgment affirm the dissent and would respectfully I I so two reasons. do sentence.
First,
my judgment,
(1989),
incorrectly
Secondly instant case. of the to the circumstances in Martorano argu- logic majority’s I Although comprehend matter, that believe, practical as a ment, it difficult to I find to convict impossible to render it intended legislature zones, risk to great through school drivers who children, anticipatory prior, without innocent school device. of a presence light in the is considered in this case the evidence When required as we are most favorable to sustain it is sufficient do, opinion I am of the There- zone. a school conviction of sentence.1 fore, judgment I would affirm added). Accordingly, light 3368(e) (emphasis 3368(e) by presence of legislature reasoning, Martorano's devices, but also only contemplated the use of not use as well. their facilitated was sufficient and majority that the citation fully agree with the 1. I judgment. require an arrest does notes school distance, low, since school have a it is zones limited easy officer to determine fairly experienced Moreover, Common speeding. someone is whether that onerous and bur argues potentially it will be wealth require police to use mechanical devices densome in zones. it asserts that the state’s interest Finally, school following Mar by in children be ill-served protecting would concerns as While we share the Commonwealth’s torano. Martora that policy, agree matter of provisions that all no proposition Subchap stands for maximum limit must be ter F which establish a device.4 by enforced given reasoning possible it is 3. We note that the Court’s brought pursuant charges may other have been Officer may have as to to establish conditions Martin testified order purview brought have conduct within which would See, Martorano, e.g., supra, violation. of another Motor Vehicle Code 5; Pa.Superior Monosky, Ct. at 160 n. 563 A.2d 1233-1234 n. Dandar, Schmitzer, supra; supra; 138, 144-5, (1981) (defendant guilty found 428 A.2d part on officer's visual observation reckless based in zone). m.p.h. m.p.h. travelling in a school he was 25 to 30 following support 4. We note of our decision. Martorano held