*1 wished, tion against they contract. Because both claims If the Portales. stemmed from im- the same incident and Portales could have had' that matter sent plicated legal principles, identical the ar- arbitration, they to but did not. There- subject chitect’s claim was also to the arbi- fore, issue, parties for that agreed both agreement. tration Id. at 1272. that the matter would be settled in court by rather than arbitration. That does not Here, the interests of are PHC mean all issues forever should be tried same as those of An arbitration PHCDV. court. There is no showing that the law- agreement would be of little if a value any suit in party way prejudiced could the Portales or agree- obviate the effect of the merely by finding way join ment to otherwise affected the resolution of the Therefore, another In party. dispute. no event could the arbi- instant general tration by clause of PHCDV be defeated apply rule should only the test should adding complaint, PHC to the and because be whether there is a valid arbitration wishes to PHC the arbitration agreement dispute and whether enforce it, Plaintiffs, agreement rather than avoid scope within the agreement. See signatories as agree- the arbitration Pittsburgh Logistics, supra; Highmark, ment, should not be able to avoid the above, supra. As discussed we have con- requirement by a non-signato- arbitrate cluded that it is.
ry when non-signatory wants to arbi- ¶ 15 Orders reversed. Cases remanded trate. for further proceedings consistent with opinion. this relinquished. Jurisdiction separate 3. The Portales do not have a against cause of action Defendants contingent
under settlement
agreement. Following purchase home, in February
their the Portales
identified certain areas work that agreed perform by way
PHCDV of com promise. Some were carried out and some Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH of repairs were not. Some of the claimed to be needed were covered agreement Merely and others were not. because the HENLEY, Appellant. Emuel C.
parties attempted dispute to resolve the does not they abrogated mean Superior Pennsylvania. Court of requirement if arbitrate the settlement Moreover, unsatisfactory. argu this Argued March 2006. and, separately pled ment was not there Sept. Filed fore, is waived. estopped 4. Defendants are not from
invoking the arbitration clause even
though they previously sued the Por- pleas
tales in court under common
the same contract. There is no “waiver” Defen prior
dants filed because lawsuit was *3 life mandatory term of imposing conviction following his
imprisonment careful degree. After in the first murder review, affirm. we court, ¶2 trial by the As recited case are as follows: facts of this charged CC The defendant of Criminal one count 199901083 with Homicide; two 19903107 with at CC Fire- violating the Uniform counts of *4 19903109, (VUFA) and, at CC arms Act Robbery. The defen- one count of in a mistrial first trial ended dant’s of the illness January 2000 because New counsel was his trial counsel. to a proceeded and the matter appointed on November jury began trial that of that trial the 2000. At the conclusion of Mur- guilty the defendant jury found Degree and of the two of the First der jury acquitted him VUFA counts. then sentenced Robbery. The Court imprisonment to life the defendant further no[ ] Homicide count and to This remaining counts. penalty at the ap- In this timely appeal[] followed. challenges the Court’s peal, defendant Suppress Evi- his Motion to denial of dence. sought suppression
The defendant after statement he made inculpatory charge for the VUFA he was arrested Coffery, Pittsburgh, appellant. for Scott of his vehicle. The following stop Streily, Atty., Dist. Michael W. Asst. suppression claimed defendant Gilmore, Atty., Pitts- Asst. Dist. James incriminating statement that the motion Com., burgh, appellee. hours after more than six was obtained arraignment. to his prior his arrest P.J., ELLIOTT, FORD BEFORE: in Motion that he claimed his He also MELVIN, JOYCE, MUSMANNO, ORIE after he had asked questioned BOWES, GANTMAN, TODD, KLEIN, they so could obtain family call members PANELLA, JJ. coun hearing, defense lawyer. At the ELLIOTT, P.J.: BY FORD OPINION to include the Motion orally sel amended judgment of sentence 1 Emuel C. Henley appeals of November from the was not a claim that a valid the search inventory search. of the vehicle [1] suppression At the hearing, the Com- Hilley and Officer conducted an invento- monwealth presented testimony vehicle, from ry search of the which revealed the officers who conducted stop a .38[c]aliber revolver under the driver’s from the homicide detectives who were seat. When the defendant admitted investigating victim, the death of the permit carry he did not have a Tyrone Swan. Homicide Detective Den- weapon, placed concealed he was under nis Logan testified that on January [] for violating arrest the Uniform Fire- 10, 1999 he received a call from the (N.T. 9). 1/26/00; arms Act. p. sister of the Mr. Swan who told him that Hilley Officer that it testified was the brother, ‘... guy had who shot her policy police department to con- .the “Toot”, whose nickname this duct an inventory any search of particular color, car. gave She possession. They taken into are re- description of the car and said the car quired by this an in- produce just had Bonifay left Street and was ventory of the entire contents of the headed towards Mr. Oliver....’ [sic] (N.T. 9). 1/26/00; vehicle. p. He fur- 21-22). (N.T., 1/26/00, p. The victim ther related that because the street been shot previous day. ha[d] De- where the vehicle was did not Logan tective then broadcast a descrip- *5 side, permit parking on either he had to vehicle, tion of the asking officers who (N.T. 1/26/00; have the vehicle towed. encountered the stop vehicle to it and 45). p. identify the and to detain drive[r] Logan Detective drove the scene of driver for questioning by homicide de- the traffic stop spoke and with the de- tectives. fendant as he sat the back of a Harry Hilley Officer J. testified that wagon. He identified himself and asked broadcast, he heard the which included if the defendant would come with him to registration number of the vehicle. questions. answer some The defendant later, A short time he saw a vehicle (N.T. 23). agreed l/[2]6/00; to go. p. matching description. He pulled be- place This took at 2:21 p.m. He took the hind the vehicle and as he looked at the office, defendant to the homicide arriv- plate to confirm that it was the correct (N.T. 24). ing 1/26/00; p.m. p. 2:36 vehicle, registration he noticed that the The defendant was of rights advised his expired. sticker was He then activated signed and a pre-interrogation warning lights his overhead and the vehicle (see form, rights, which set forth those (N.T. pulled to the side the street. 1). Suppression Commonwealth Exhibit 5-7). 1/26/00; pp. Hilley ap- Officer Over the course of the next hour the proached the and spoke with the defendant, initially in- denying any after defendant. The defendant told the offi- Swan, volvement the death of Mr. cer that he did not know if the vehicle’s admitted that he had shot the victim. registration was current and also admit- (N.T. 25-[2]7). 1/26/00; pp. Detective ted that he did not have insurance on Logan denied that defendant ever vehicle. The officer then told the requested attorney an defendant or that he be that because the vehicle did speak family allowed to not have a valid members to and was not insured, request they attorney. summon an the defendant would be cited (N.T. 27). 1/26/00; p. for these violations and the vehicle The interview (N.T. 1/26/00; approximately p.m. would have to towed. lasted until 3:31 be 8). p. The given defendant exited the vehicle when the defendant was food and
357
2002,
9,
4
filed
appellant
checked
him
On December
drink.
detective
on
pro
petition alleging
timely
4:21
se PCRA1
again
p.m.
and then waited for
(N.T.
to file
1/26/00;
failing
of counsel
pp.
the coroner’s office.
ineffectiveness
1925(b)
26-27).
requesting resto-
and
statement
(Docket
rights.
No.
appellate
ration of his
1] Each of these issues was
[Footnote
21.)
filed
appointed
New counsel was
filed
raised in
Omnibus Pre-trial Motion
30,
petition
PCRA
on June
amended
following
by defendant’s
counsel
the first
new
n (Docket
24.)
2004,
July
No.
On
mistrial.
rights
rein-
appeal
were
appellant’s direct
opinion,
Trial court
at 2-5.
4/25/02
25.)
(Docket
pro tunc.
No.
stated nunc
initially filed a
Appellant
notice
11, 2004,
August
appellant filed this
On
on
2000. The Honor-
appeal December
(Docket
26.)2 A
appeal.
direct
No.
Jeffrey A.
ordered
Manning
appellant
able
1925(b)
filed November
statement was
on
to file a concise
com-
statement matters
19, 2004,
12, 2004;
on November
of on
plained
appeal pursuant
Pa.R.A.P.
be
trial court ordered
the record
1925(b).
18.)
1/22/02;
(Order,
Docket No.
transmitted,
relying
opinion
on its prior
28, 2002,
October
this court filed a
On
April 25, 2002.
dated
judgment
order
judgment
affirming
¶5 Appellant
suppress
seeks to
Henley,
sentence. Commonwealth v.
No.
gun
confession
evidence of
his
2000, unpublished judgment
2145 WDA
or-
(1)
illegal inventory
based
der,
A.2d
filed
(Pa.Super.
October
(2)
vehic
illegal
stop
traffic
of his
2002).
that appellant
We determined
reviewing
suppres
In
le.3
denial
1925(b)
had failed
file his
statement as
sion,
applies:
the following
and,
record;
part
certified
there-
*6
fore,
of
his issues
Id.
of review of a denial
were waived.
See Com-
Our standard
Lord,
415,
suppression
sup-
v.
Pa.
is whether
record
monwealth
553
719 A.2d
(1998);
findings
Schofield,
ports
306
v.
the trial court’s factual
Commonwealth
389,
(2005);
legal
Pa.
drawn
585
sider
prosecu-
Pless,
evidence of the
Commonwealth v.
Pa.Super.
451
tion and so much of
209,
the evidence for the
232,
(1996),
679 A.2d
citing
233
Com-
defense as remains uncontradicted when
DeWitt,
299, 304,
monwealth v.
530 Pa.
608
read
the context of the record as a
1030,
(1992).
A.2d
1032
“Incident to this
whole. Where the record supports the
stop,
may
the [officer]
check the vehicle’s
court,
findings
suppression
of the
we are
registration and the driver’s license and
bound
those
may
facts and
reverse
(citation omitted).
issue a citation.” Id.
if
only
reaching
court erred in
its
¶ Appellant argues
that because Offi-
legal
upon
conclusions based
the facts.
Hilley
cer
following
his car at Detec-
1196,
Reppert,
Commonwealth v.
814 A.2d
Logan’s request
tive
pull
and intended to
(en banc)
(citations
(Pa.Super.2002)
him
regardless
over
of whether or not he
omitted).
and quotation marks
Code,
was in violation of the
this renders
choose to
appel
We
address
the stop
illegal.
somehow
(Appellant’s
first,
lant’s
legality
second issue
18.)
brief at
have to look at the facts
We
stop.
call,
initial traffic
Based on the radio
are,
they
as
they might
not what
have
Hilley
Officer
pulled behind appellant’s been;
Hilley’s testimony
Officer
is clear
car.
It was at that time that he noticed
appellant’s expired
that he saw
registra-
registration
plate
sticker on the license
prior
pulling
tion sticker
the vehicle
(Notes
had expired.
testimony,
1/26/00
Appellant
over.
does not contest the fact
6.)
Hilley’s
at
Officer
testimony was clear
that an expired registration is a violation
expired registration
he saw the
stick
Therefore,
of the Motor Vehicle Code.4
prior
er
stopping appellant’s
vehicle.
stop was valid.
(Id.
15.)
at
Hilley
Officer
activated his
¶ Next,
lights
we consider
proceeded
appel
and siren and
with the
(Id.
7.)
stop.
argument
traffic
lant’s
impoundment
After
running the
plates through
they
index to confirm
his vehicle and subsequent
inventory
were
expired, Officer Hilley approached the
ve
were unlawful and the evidence
hicle and asked appellant whether he was
suppressed.
Inventory
should have been
(Id.)
aware his
expired.
searches are a well-defined exception to
Appellant replied that he was not sure.
requirement.
the search warrant
Colora
(Id.
7-8.)
Hilley
appel
Officer
asked
Bertine,
do v.
479 U.S.
107 S.Ct.
*7
insurance;
lant whether or not he had
ap
(1987);
359 368-369, 376 154, safety. at Brandt, community’s A.2d Id. Pa.Super. 244 866 (1976) (en banc). 1288, Inventory 10, 1241 3092. n. 96 S.Ct. fol- one more of the searches serve or inquiry is whether The second (1) the own-
lowing purposes:
protect
to
in-
reasonable
have conducted a
police
police
in
while it remains
property
er’s
370, 96 S.Ct.
search.
Id. at
ventory
(2)
protect
against
to
custody;
police
inventory
is reasonable
An
search
3092.
disputes
lost or stolen
claims or
over
pursuant to reasonable
if it is conducted
(3)
from
protect
police
property;
good
in
procedures and
police
standard
(4)
danger;
potential
and
to assist
of
purpose
not for
sole
faith and
the vehi-
police
determining whether
Bertine,
See
479 U.S.
investigation.
and
cle was stolen
then abandoned. See
(‘reasonable
374,
police
738
107 S.Ct.
Dakota v.
428 U.S.
Opperman,
South
relating
inventory proce-
regulations
364, 369,
3092,
96 S.Ct.
vant ¶ Thurman, Thurman 13 In Michael (a) Subject inspec- to subsec- driving expired for with an General rule.— (d), malfunctioning brake following apply: the shall and a
tion tion sticker stop, During the traffic Id.
light. determined, the Penn- through officer the (2) If a motor or combination vehicle system, Thurman’s computer DOT regis- for no which there is valid due suspended had been registra- or for the tration which cancellation. Id. Pursuant insurance failing to suspended tion is for General Department Police Norristown maintain responsibility, financial 2000-23, impounded the officer Order by law appropriate as verified an Id. it towed. Thurman’s vehicle and had officer, operated on enforcement towing pursuant Prior to and General highway trafficway or of this 2000-23, the inventory search of Order Commonwealth, motor vehicle the one conducted which uncovered car was or combination shall be immobi- marijuana plas- of and three plastic baggie by lized au- law enforcement cocaine. baggies tic of Id. judi- thority, appropriate and the trial Thurman’s 14 The court denied authority cial shall be so notified. after suppress, appealed motion to and he (b) upon Procedure immobilization.— of- drug being guilty found of various A of this court panel fenses. unanimous (2) When a vehicle is immobilized reversed, by holding adoption that absent (a)(2), pursuant subsection 6309.2, police of Section local ordinance may appear owner of the vehicle authority to and tow the impound lacked judicial au- appropriate before inventory and therefore the vehicle thority within 24 hours from the The court deter- invalid. Thurman time the vehicle was immobilized. enabling mined that Section 6309.2 authority appropriate judicial and that the failure of Mont- legislation may issue a of release certificate by County to the statute gomery adopt upon: de- local ordinance invalidated (i) furnishing proof registra- impounding partment General Order by responsibility tion and financial “Thus, towing a towing a and vehicle. vehicle; the owner and registra- proper failure to have vehicle for can be Borough in the of Norristown tion (ii) receipt opera- of evidence that the by not only by accomplished ordinance complied tor of the vehicle has department.” general order pertinent provisions Id. at 840-841. 42 and Title this title.
(3) If is not a certification of release Similarly, in the instant
obtained within 24 hours from case, presented is no there evidence immobilized, time the vehicle was adopted City Pittsburgh has Rather, the vehicle shall be towed the offi ordinance Section 6309.2. towing Pittsburgh upon appropriate stored in this case relied cers inventory proce storage impoundment under subsec- Police agent (c). unregistered/uninsured dure for tion arrest. *10 in
stopped of a city adopted by middle street. local ordinance elsewhere. In Upon words, careful further review of other Section panel whereas Thur- 6309.2, disagree we man only authority held that municipalities across the Commonwealth, governments Norristown, local impound- including have for the only authority ment and have towing effectively impound of vehicles and tow an unregistered/uninsured immobilized if registration they lack of or in- ordinance, adopt surance derives from Section 6309.2 local Section 6309.2. To we plain language believe the contrary, regard of the statute adoption 6309.2, municipalities only indicates that are Section our sub- legislature provided: ject specific procedures to the set forth in § The addition of 75 Pa.C.S. 6309.2 shall if they statute choose to adopt them.7 take effect as follows: (i) ¶ class, Therefore, In cities of the first in 120 specifically disap- we
days. [6] prove analysis in Thurman to the ef- (ii) fect that: In all other areas of this Common-
wealth, upon even if adoption of a local ordi- General Order 2000-23 has been properly adopted in electing applicability every way, nance other sec- it tion 6309.2. would still be unenforceable as section specifically 6309.2 addresses the same 6309.2, 75 Pa.C.S.A. Historical and Stat- subject and supersedes therefore added). utory (emphasis *11 by law the Common case cited appellant’s pulled that because vehicle was While zone, trial indicates there “no-parking” over in a that Officer and the court wealth non-statutory authority ‘community care-taking de- Hilley had the concurrent is a a his function as a cer care-taking police’ rivative of of the that allows function and police immediately impound officer to in determining latitude when the tain Hilley vehicle, testified: reading the vehicle. Officer a a fair may tow tow police the portion of statute of the relevant it vehicle on point (parking At that the road) aimed that section 3352 is the feasible indicates the side of was not on no have been left of the fact it a those vehicles which because that roadways I to in a manner as to parking area. can’t someone the such permit would park their have vehicle pulled illegally. up on the And if he sidewalk, impede ty concern. traffic [2] or We can find no cause a legitimate authority safe also, one, with, illegal to this section begin proposition that’s for the that large a snow out onto those boot-strapped there was amount of intended to be onto day, pull regarding that and he even of the Vehicle Code couldn’t sections I the moving sidewalk. Whenever initiated insurance or other registration, the the stop stop right we had to traffic traffic violations. roadway. no find- 2] The trial court made [Footnote testimony, The Notes of at 42. 1/26/00 posed ing whether car as to Thurman’s argues by virtue Commonwealth also safely impeded traffic. Re- actual hazard or safety, garding referenced the trial court uninsured, unregistered of being public safety removing general notion of “illegal” not be
vehicle itself was and could One uninsured vehicles from the streets. of- moved or left unattended. stopped Thurman’s car was ficer testified curb, it was addressing In19 next to the other that the Commonwealth’s curb. than a car width from the more im- argument lawfully had § 3352 Id. pounded discussing Thurman’s of their 75 Pa.C.S.A. part vehicle as (removal Thur- function,” of “community by of vehicle or at direction care-taking man opined: police).8 or consti- 3352. Removal of or at di- the normal movement of traffic vehicle safety rection of tute a hazard. (c)Removal safety.— garage place of or (a) dis- Outside business and residence Any police may officer or cause to remove any police tricts. —Whenever officer finds place of to the of business be removed any provi- a vehicle in of the violation of nearby ga- operator of a or to a wrecker (relating stop- of section sions place safety any rage other vehicle or of ping, standing parking busi- outside any districts), upon a highway under found and residence the officer ness vehicle, following may vehi- circumstances: move the or cause the moved, (1) Report has made that the vehicle require been cle to be or the driver or without has been stolen or taken person charge the vehicle to other vehicle, of its owner. consent position off move (2) charge person persons The or roadway where the will not inter- vehicle provide physically are unable unduly vehicle normal movement fere custody of the vehi- for the or removal safety or constitute hazard. traffic (b) obstructing traffic.— cle. Unattended (3) person driving in control or Any police may cause to officer remove or alleged offense place any vehicle is arrested for safety unat- removed to be required law which the standing upon officer illegally tended vehicle left person any arrested before an bridge, causeway to take any highway, or in tunnel, issuing authority unnecessary without position such in such or under delay. unduly with as to circumstances interfere agree We with the permit Commonwealth. To the uninterrupted flow of traf-
Moreover,
to the extent
that Thurman
fic
pre-
some circumstances to
*12
interpreted
could be
as opining that absent
evidence,
damaged
serve
disabled or
ve-
a
adopting
6B09.2,
local ordinance
Section
hicles will often be removed from the
authority
have no
impound
to
highways or streets at
the behest of
unregistered
and tow an
and uninsured
police engaged solely in caretaking and
pursuant
vehicle
care-taking
their
func-
traffic-control activities. Police will also
tion,
disapproved.
it is
contrary,
To the
frequently
impound
remove and
automo-
true;
i.e.,
think
opposite
we
is
that the
parking
biles which violate
ordinances
statute
not
trump
intended to
thereby jeopardize
and which
both the
traditional community care-taking func-
public safety and the efficient movement
police.9
tions of the
“Judges are not in a
of vehicular
authority
traffic. The
position
second-guess
officer’s
police to seize and remove from the
which,
decision to tow a vehicle
in the
streets
impeding
vehicles
traffic or
opinion, may
officer’s
create a traffic haz-
threatening public safety and conven-
ard. To do so
seriously handicap
would
beyond challenge.
ience is
legitimate traffic-control activities.” Unit-
368-369,
Id. at
An it is not place department takes when and claim discovering the coupled unregistered/uninsured intent of an the case inventory if it cannot be impound evidence of crime. The is to it vehicle is 45.) (Id. 13, 42, purpose not for of uncov- conducted at Offi- legally parked. evidence, ering incriminating unregis- but for the to move an permitted cers are not area purpose safeguarding the contents vehicle to a safe tered/uninsured (Id. 13.) for the benefit of at legally parked. the vehicle both it can be where con- police. owner and the vehicle and impounding appellant’s In search, inventory Of- ducting required Brandt, Pa.Super. Commonwealth v. merely following estab- Hilley ficer was (1976), citing Op 366 A.2d policy; the search departmental lished perman, supra. of a evidence designed not to uncover It that a valid inven- is well established crime. uncover tory designed is not search ¶26 that also contends Appellant In Opperman, of a crime. evidence for improper had an motive Hilley an in- established that Officer Supreme Court and subse of his vehicle impoundment ventory only excepted is from search Officer inventory because quent cause requirement probable or warrant was want Hilley appellant aware that by a desire to where it is motivated vehicle, homicide detectives. questioning by ed safeguard the contents Hilley Officer at suppression analysis. improper testified man11 I believe it hearing that dispatch panel he received a de- overturn a decision dicta when scribing appellant’s analysis necessary vehicle and that is not at all instruc- tions to detain the driver for decision. There was no claim in Thurman questioning (Id. 5.) impermissi- homicide detectives. that the car was in an There testimony Hilley place necessary was no ble and it Officer knew to tow the anything particular case, car and inventory about the or therefore conduct an why even detectives wished to search. Therefore I dissent to that question por- driver; . e.g., tion of the suspect majority opinion. whether he was a or a material Hilley witness. Officer testified ¶ 3 Thurman does not stand for that he knew detectives were interested proposition governments no local driver, but not necessarily the vehicle longer ability have the tow vehicle (Id. 40.) forego- itself.10 Based pursuant “community care-taking to their ing, Hilley’s we conclude that Officer mo- Rather, function.” Thurman with a dealt improper tives were not pur- and that the specific issue of whether local de- *14 pose inventory for the search was not to partment may, authority, adopt on its own uncover incriminating evidence. regulation a requiring police .the to tow any Affirmed. properly registered vehicle that is not insured. Thurman held that a lo- and/or
¶ GANTMAN, 28 J. in concurs the cal police department cannot such institute result. legislature specifi- because has cally provided for the manner which ¶ KLEIN, 29 Concurring J. files a and towing place, such is to take see 75 Pa.C.S. Dissenting Opinion joined by which is § 6309.2. Thurman was not a wholesale GANTMAN, J. ability attack on the common law for the CONCURRING AND DISSENTING police community exercise their care- KLEIN, OPINION BY J.: taking responsibilities regarding traffic ¶ Rather, agree 1 I Henley’s judgment prevents control. Thurman affirmed, sentence agree improperly towing should be from a non-regis- that because the tered parked appropriately, solely vehicle was in a vehicle no-parking unregistered area where because it there were also unin- and/or a) snow, sured, mounds of it necessary obtaining authority was to tow without first Therefore, unit; the car. public safety proper governmental ex- from the local b) ception applies appropriate observing honoring and it was fun- certain inventory towing process rights. the car before it. damental due
¶
¶
However,
2
I
fully agree
do not believe the out-
4 I
majority
with the
dependent
any
come is
way on a Thur-
section 6309.2
not
trump
was
intended to
handgun
10. The record reflects that the
caliber
.38
semi-automatic
was recovered from
vehicle,
revolver found under the driver’s seat was not
passenger
on the
side as de-
weapon. Appellant
the murder
claimed it
(Id.)
by appellant.
Expert testimony
scribed
(Notes
gun.
testimony,
was the victim's
weapon
at trial established that this
trial,
195.) During
at
his inter-
11/14-16/00
(Id.
244.)
used to murder Swan.
Logan, appellant
view with Detective
stated
gun
that the
he used to kill Swan was still in
Thurman,
11.
Commonwealth
367 ¶ it is government If a believes functions of the local care-taking traditional amendment, community to tow However, interests of the the best police. prior to the solely uninsured vehicles unregistered and ability to tow did not have the unregistered vehicles are because those being it any simply by vehicle virtue of uninsured, municipality then uninsured, if the vehi- unregistered and/or provide section 6309.2 and adopt should any safety traffic or pose cle did not other legislature process protections the due But the fact is that tow- problem. related requires. safety hazard ing creating a vehicle not solely unregistered it is because and/or ¶ however, Thurman, implicated is not by any other was not covered
uninsured current in the presented in the situation taking functions are not statute. The care present here The factual situation case. solely by being virtue of the car implicated of the tradition- fully supports the exercise unregistered.12 functions, as the care-taking as well al un- authority to tow the vehicle statutory car, provided 6309.2 that a 5 Section der 75 Pa.C.S. legally, proper can towed if parked even be over, Here, Henley pulled To have the procedures are followed. sticker part, because safety right creating to tow a car not Henley was expired.13 his vehicle legislature required any mu- problem, the in an no-parking in a zone and pulled over (other nicipality Philadelphia than where prevented snow area where automatic) adoption of the section was the flow being safely parked from outside formally statute. simply adopt the state *15 being parking a no of traffic.14 Both statute, will be cer- Under the state there could not be zone and the fact that the car mu- process safeguards tain due before a curb, safely way out of the pulled to the nicipality creating can tow a car not traffic, reasons to tow legitimate other are uniformity safety hazard and there will be (c)(4). 3352(b), a vehicle under 75 Pa.C.S. application. It no sense to its makes Thus, sole- Henley’s vehicle was not towed can, police department that believe a local unregistered and unin- ly because it was independently, adopt its own that in a because it was sured. It was towed process princi- does not observe the due impeded because it parking no zone and That ples embodied the section. would the car was the flow of traffic. Because police department mean that the would be towed, subsequent legitimately towing creating restricted in cars not similarly proper. of the vehicle was public safety problem they adopted if ¶ Therefore, I agree while legislature presumed act. is not to result, im- result, I that Thurman is not and that would be believe intend absurd good law. I and should remain plicated absurd. registration and mere example, pull proof had insurance see a car 12.As private driveway typical subur- away out of a in a the house. feet inside setting. ban The car’s sticker stop police immediately out of date. The questioning Henley was also wanted for 13. over, pulled traffic's and the car is out of car regarding a murder. directly way in front of the vehicle own- and the re- er’s house. Without Thurman Henley’s allegation, is no spite there 14. In procedures quirement follow indication, finding, importantly no 6309.2, major- police, under the of section Henley particu- police pulled over in this view, ity’s simply vehicle under could tow the spot simply pretext to tow. as lar rubric, “care-taking” even if the owner may think it good well remain law because majority’s analysis
most of the is dicta. Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH of
Appellee,
Lynn STROUSE, Appellant. A.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Submitted 2006. June Sept.
Filed Hoffert, Reading, appel-
Lara C.G. for lant. Waltman,
Douglas Atty., J. Asst. Dist. Reading, appellee. STEVENS,
BEFORE: ORIE *16 POPOVICH, MELVIN JJ. POPOVICH, BY OPINION J.: Lynn A. Appellant appeals Strouse (nine judgment twenty- of sentence imprisonment) attempt- three months ing to lure a child into a motor vehicle1 on grounds that the evidence was insufficient affirm. sustain his conviction. We reviewing “The standard of sufficiency of the evidence is whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reason therefrom, able inferences drawn when light viewed most favorable to the winner, Commonwealth as the verdict disorderly §§ Appellant 1. 18 Pa.C.S.A. conduct. Pa.C.S.A. 5503(a)(4). charged guilty also with but found not Notes general order. Section 6309.2 does not view, then, In16 our legislature’s impounding allow towing in the use of phrase “electing applicability” manner in it which was done in this indicates an intent that the provisions of circumstance. 6309.2, Section including right to 24- (footnote omitted). Id. at 841 hour notice before may the vehicle be towed, only take effect in cities of the first 18 The trial court and the Com class; i.e., Philadelphia, unless specifically monwealth argument further advance the only city 6. The of the first class in the say Com- Mr. FAIRCHILD. Where does it in the Philadelphia. monwealth is they bill that are— say Mr. HORSEY. It does not that in the option" provision 7. This "local subject legislation, Speaker, Mr. but it has been the debate legis- and discussion at the time of the policy Philadelphia years. pres- adoption. lation’s ent— Speaker, [Mr. FAIRCHILD] Mr. if one of Mr. FAIRCHILD. What about the my constituents would fail to renew their for the rest of the State? which, unfortunately, on time— Well, Speaker, leg- Mr. HORSEY. Mr. this my gets they office a lot of these—and were Philadelphia County specifi- islation covers in, driving say, let us the worst section of cally, county right and each other has a Philadelphia or the most rural section of implement their own structure in terms of Pennsylvania they stopped rural were they impoundment. what want in terms of impounded, hap- their car was what only Philadelphia presently. This covers pens to that driver of that vehicle at that option. they Other counties have local If particular point in time? it, implement they want to imple- then can Speaker, present Mr. HORSEY. Mr. under standards, Philadelphia way ment it in the person if a same that we do it appropriate papers, Philadelphia. without the un- rules, impoundment session, der the he or she is reg. Legislative HB 1995-96 station, dropped taken to the nearest (Pa.), p.1966. Journal-House June off, and he cannot drive his automobile. passed option” The bill with the "local disabled, His automobile is but he is not left place. in that worst area.