*1 authorized, fact-finder, claims, indeed jury, as each on all of Jefferson’s Levine reject. Upon review accept or required, separately considered one of which was in and deference to of the entire record rejected by jury. and review, of we determine that our standard denying a standard of review Our its discretion trial court did not abuse trial is to decide motion for new did not shock by finding that the verdict an the trial court committed whether Thus, conclude that conscience. the out- of which controlled error law refusing made no error the court or committed an abuse come of the case weight based on the grant a new trial grant- A trial will be of discretion. new weight claim evidence. Jefferson’s grounds that the verdict ed fails. weight of the evidence where against the contrary to the evidence
the verdict is so forth For of the reasons set all justice. An it shocks one’s sense above, that Jefferson is not we conclude to a new trial appellant is not entitled The trial relief. appellate entitled to conflicting and the the evidence is where grant JNOY Jeffer- court’s refusal have decided either finder of fact could proper, as duty loyalty claim was son’s way. JNOV on Dr. grant its refusal WPCL. Tie, Inc., Wapner’s counterclaim supra, 814 A.2d Ty-Butbon Further, instruction to the (citation omitted). the trial court’s faith under jury regarding good brief, out a list In its Jefferson sets correct and its decision WPCL by Drs. engaged which details conduct trial based on the a new deny Jefferson Levine, and which conduct Wapner and not be dis- of the evidence shall weight ver- insists establishes Jefferson judg- Accordingly, we affirm turbed. justice” be- dict “shocked one’s sense ment. magnitude grasp of its failure to cause (Jefferson’s Brief of the doctors’ conduct. Judgment affirmed. 46-48). court, however, re- The trial evidence, including evidence
viewed brought forth
that conflicted with
Jefferson, weight rejected Jefferson’s entirety of the record. based on the
claim the alle- specifically trial court noted trial, during the Jefferson made gations Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH testimony given by doc- the extensive Appellant, allegations, and tors to rebut those weight jury’s duty to determine presented by credibility of all the evidence Mark S. WORTHY. 9-13). parties. Opinion Court of the record confirms Our review Pennsylvania. Superior Court identified, large correctly trial 25, 2005. Argued Oct. jury’s to the important the evidence part, 29, Filed June vigor- counsel determination. Jefferson’s a two-week its case over ously presented just vigor- counsel
period opposing parties
ously the matter. defended evidence that conflicting *2 Gilmore,
James R. Atty., Asst. Dist. Com., Pittsburgh, for appellant. Sheerer, Martin Pittsburgh, W. for ap- pellee. ELLIOTT, TODD,
BEFORE: FORD
POPOVICH,
JJ.
ELLIOTT,
OPINION BY FORD
J.:
¶ 1 In this appeal, the Commonwealth
challenges
the October
2004 order of
Court
Common Pleas of Allegheny
(“Wor-
County granting
Worthy’s
Mark S.
thy”) motion to suppress evidence obtained
after his vehicle
at a
checkpoint roadblock.1 The trial court
held that
at issue
failed
adhere to the Tarbert-Blouse criteria.2
and affirm.
112 When we review the Com
monwealth’s appeal from the decision of
court,
suppression
consider
“[we]
the evidence from the defendant’s wit
together
nesses
with the evidence of the
that,
prosecution
read
the context
record,
of the entire
remains uneontradict-
appeal
permissible
1. This
as the Common-
2. Commonwealth v.
517 Pa.
good
wealth has certified in
faith that
(1987) (plurality);
A.2d 1035
suppression order submitted for our review
(1992).
531 Pa.
Did 2002, the state May, our acci- review the cluding police operating that the drinking regarding and dent statistics sobriety pursuant to 75 checkpoint DUI department driving accidents and our 6308(b), § stopped Pa.C.S.A. which ev- showing of traffic records the number im- ery approached, vehicle that acted resulting driving in under the in- stops checkpoint in the at properly opening arrests, you are authorized to fluence to allow times traffic 22 Route west- up set a check on pass the through checkpoint motorists to Express, Roomful 3651 William bound at resuming checkpoint opera- before Monroeville, PA. If Highway Penn stopping every tions of vehicle? you from prevent circumstances would location, Commonwealth’s brief are primary you that au- using Moss thorized to move Side Bou- charged driv Worthy was with levard, Route 48 State Monroeville. alcohol, influence of ing 3731(a)(1) (a)(4)(i), after §§ he was Id. at 6. during sobriety on checkpoint that Sergeant Harvey explained Monroeville, Pennsylvania. May at began approximately 11:40 checkpoint pre-trial filed an motion Worthy omnibus (Id. 7.) p.m. at The officer involved dismiss; motion to he claimed that and a posted orange signs checkpoint large May the roadblock conducted feet road which up several hundred May through 2002 was unconstitutional (Id. by lights. at were lit traffic flares and therefore, and, any evidence obtained from 7-8.) of an im- signs The drivers advised stop suppressed. must be checkpoint minent He also stated ahead. suppression hearing A was held on vehicle, exception, every that without was Sergeant 2004 wherein Ronald H. April (Id. 8.) However, stopped. to be Harvey”) Harvey (“Sergeant testified and there got heavy “when the traffic was coordinator for the checkpoint he was the opened the delay, an unreasonable (Notes question. roadblock in regulatory let all traffic flow. At checkpoint testimony, Sergeant Har- (Id.) checked.” no point, with administration of vey met there Sergeant Harvey stated that were where, when, police department as opened three different occasions where He would be held. why checkpoint. history information to show the ¶ Following hearing, the court or- roadway far as the number Argument from both parties. dered briefs that had oc- and DUI arrests accidents an (Id.) during October on the briefs was held in that curred area. hearing. on the evidence by Based approved Assistant hearing, adduced from the the trial court officers in the In field. concluded that prosecution failed connection it is essential that the route which, satisfy selected for the its burden of roadblock be one proving that the sobri- ety experience, likely based on local to be constitutional; on Oc- by traveled intoxicated drivers. The tober the court filed an order time of the gov- roadblock should be granting Worthy’s suppression motion. by erned the same consideration. Addi- timely Commonwealth filed a appeal tionally, which vehicles 1925(b) along with the Rule statement or- at the roadblock should not be dered court. left unfettered *4 ¶ 8 It is well stop settled that the scene, at the but instead should officers ping of an automobile and the detention of be in objective accordance with stan- occupants subject its is a seizure to consti dards prefixed administrative deci- tutional restraints under the United States sion. Pennsylvania Constitutions.3 Com added). Blouse, (emphasis Id. supra See Fioretti, 535, monwealth v. Pa.Super. 371 (“We at 611 at adopt A.2d now (1988). “However, A.2d 570 if the Tarbert, guidelines set forth in because police specified follow procedures, system they goal assuring achieve that an atic, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary expectation individual’s reasonable of pri- roadblocks for purpose of insuring vacy subject is not to arbitrary invasions safety highways have been deemed solely at the unfettered discretion of offi- constitutional.” Ziegel Commonwealth v. field.”). cers in the Ziegelmeier, See also meier, Pa.Super. 685 A.2d Tarbert, quoting at supra. (1996) (citation omitted). The authori “[sjubstan- The Blouse court also held that ty systematic to conduct a roadblock compliance tial guidelines with the is all Pennsylvania statutorily is authorized. 75 required that is to reduce the intrusiveness 6308(b).4 § Pa.C.S.A. constitutionally accept- the search to a Tarbert, 9 In supra, a plurality of our Blouse, supra. able level.” supreme court set forth to in- mind, particulars 10 With these we sure that an investigative roadblock is ac- now focus our attention on the instant ceptable. Specifically, supreme our court checkpoint to if determine it was conduct- following: indicated the ed in a Again, constitutional manner.
First,
very
decision to hold a drunk-
trial court found
did not
roadblock,
driver
as well as the decision
rather,
comply
guideline;
with the fifth
as to its time and place, should be mat-
of which vehicles to
ters reserved for prior administrative
by objective
was not established
standards
approval,
removing
thus
the determina-
prefixed by administrative decision.
3.)
tion of those matters from the discretion
opinion,
agree.
at
We
2/4/05
quest
The Fourth
signal,
purpose
checking
Amendment to the United States
or
for the
Pennsyl-
§
Constitution and
Article
registration, proof
the vehicle’s
of financial
protect against
vania Constitution
unreason-
responsibility, vehicle identification number
able searches and seizures.
license,
engine
or
number or the
or
driver's
to secure such other information as the
police
engaged
4. Whenever a
officer is
ain
may reasonably
officer
believe to be neces-
systematic program checking
vehicles or
sary
provisions
to enforce the
of this title.
suspicion
drivers or has reasonable
that a
6308(b).
§
75 Pa.C.S.A.
occurring
violation of this title is
or has
occurred,
vehicle,
may stop
upon
re-
concern
Again, “[a]
At
testi-
roadblock.
central
suppression hearing,
balancing
protect-
opposing
the man-
interests
mony
concerning
arbitrary
from
invasions
ing
in which
the individual
ner
conducted
au-
discretion of officers in
memorandum which
at
unfettered
roadblock. The
supra
procedure for the
the field.”
at
A.2d
plans
thorized the
“the
Sergeant Harvey
into evidence.
had
unfet-
checkpoint was entered
suspend
of when
tered discretion
testimony presented
revealed that
“[ejxcept
for
and when
resume the check-
each vehicle was
(Id.
4-5.)
heavy
arbitrary
at
Such
deci-
got
point.”
the traffic
and there was
significantly by the
delay,
sions can be curtailed
opened
an unreasonable
very
safeguard;
deci-
let all the traffic flow. At
institution of a
check
many
are
checked.”
sion of how
cars
point,
no
(Notes
prior
for
administrative
testimony,
should be reserved
removing the determination
opened
approval,
at three different
thus
officers in
during
operation.
times
its
from
supra
the field. See
¶ 12
with the trial court that
*5
A.2d at 1043.
guidelines
“the
of Tarbert-Blouse were not
argues that
prefixed
complied with as there was no
The Commonwealth
act
objective
police
cri-
the
not
with “unfettered
administrative decision with
did
temporarily
to
the officers
describing
suspend
teria
the
discretion” when
checkpoint
of the
checkpoint
stopped
operation
allow traffic
to flow
the
to
backed-up
every
that
opinion,
at when traffic
ve-
through.”
court
checkpoint
authorizing
hicle was
while the
was
stopped
The memorandum
this
11, 12,16.)
brief
checkpoint
operating.
(Appellant’s
made no mention of when the
Rather,
that the
temporarily stopped
the
claims
checkpoint could be
Commonwealth
suspended opera-
the
Additionally,
temporary
traffic
no testi-
nature of
due to
flow.
to alleviate de-
Sergeant
checkpoint
as to
tion of
mony was
how
compliance
guideline—
lay
that
with the first
Harvey came to the conclusion
in nature.
momentary
that
that
traffic was
to the
be
“Authority
For
make on the scene decisions
suspended.
to be
operation needed
a
instance,
testify
suspend operations is nec-
Harvey
temporarily
not
Sergeant
did
essary
police
to effectuate a
stopped
were
on
function of
many
as to how
cars
checkpoint.”
properly
run
roadway
suspended
the times
Commonwealth, however,
crite-
is unable to
did he
checkpoint.
explain
Nor
any
making
this court to
case or administra-
that was
the decision to refer
ria
used
authority supporting
proposition.
this
again. No testi-
tive
begin checking vehicles
presented to
mony was
indicate
¶ 15 The
asserts that
Commonwealth
for
safety problems
traffic stoppage posed
substantially
with the
complied
the officers
See, e.g.,
the citizens or officer involved.
Relying primarily
Fior
requirements.
Tarbert,
supra at
535 A.2d
etti,
Pacek,
supra, and Commonwealth
(1997),
Therefore,
Pa.Super.
whatever reason —must conform to fixed, objective standards. Because I TODD, J. files a Concurring case, those standards were not met Statement. join I majority. CONCURRING BY STATEMENT TODD, J.: join because, 1 I majority opinion guidelines, the Tarbert-Blouse I