Com. v. Feczko

• Decision Date: 22 December 2010
• Citation: 10 A.3d 1285
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. David Edward FECZKO, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

10 A.3d 1285

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.David Edward FECZKO, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 18, 2010.

Filed Dec. 22, 2010.

William T.C. Tully, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Matthew P. Smith, Assistant District Attorney, Carlisle, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, BENDER, BOWES, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, ALLEN, OLSON and OTT, JJ.

OPINION BY BENDER, J.:

David Feczko (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for DUI-General Impairment, DUI-Highest Rate, and Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic. See 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1), (c), 3309(1). Appellant contends that the suppression court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress, which challenged the basis of the traffic stop. We conclude that the stop was legal because the officer had probable cause to believe that Appellant had committed a vehicle code violation. Accordingly, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on August 19, 2008, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Krista Miller was on duty and traveling eastbound on SR 174 in her marked patrol car when she came upon Appellant's silver Cadillac. N.T. Suppression, 4/28/09, at 5. Trooper Miller observed the left tires of Appellant's vehicle briefly cross over the double yellow median line and enter the oncoming lane of travel while negotiating a curve in the road. Id. Appellant's vehicle then gradually swayed within the lane, crossing over the white fog line two or three times. Id. The vehicle's left tires then briefly drifted over the double yellow median line for a second time. Id. At this point, Trooper Miller activated her emergency lights and siren and conducted a traffic stop of Appellant's vehicle. Trooper Miller testified that the basis for the stop was "reasonable suspicion due to the fact that the individual was weaving within his lane and also crossed out of his lane of travel on numerous occasions." Id. at 8. Trooper Miller did not indicate that she conducted the stop on suspicion of DUI.

Furthermore, the record shows that after Trooper Miller stopped Appellant's vehicle and approached him, she noticed an odor of alcohol on Appellant's breath. N.T. Trial, 5/21/09, at 3. In addition, Appellant's eyes were red and glassy and his speech was slurred. Id. Appellant also failed a breathalyzer test, and a subsequent blood alcohol test showed an alcohol content level of .174 percent. Id. at 4. Based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the aforementioned offenses.

Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress claiming that the arresting officer did not possess the requisite reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of Appellant's vehicle. A hearing on the motion was held on April 28, 2009, at which the suppression court denied Appellant's motion. Following a bench trial, and based on a stipulated record, Appellant was convicted on all charges and sentenced to ninety days' to five years' imprisonment and a $1,525.00 fine plus costs. Appellantthen filed this appeal raising the following question for our review:

(1) DID THE OFFICER HAVE THE REQUISITE REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION UPON WHICH TO BASE THE TRAFFIC STOP OF APPELLANT'S CAR?

Brief for Appellant at 4.

Our standard for reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress is well established.

We are limited to determining whether the lower court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are correct. We may consider the evidence of the witnesses offered by the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, and only so much of the evidence presented by [the] defense that is not contradicted when examined in the context of the record as a whole. We are bound by facts supported by the record and may reverse only if the legal conclusions reached by the court were erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924, 927 (Pa.Super.2006).

Appellant's question concerns the quantum of cause required in order for a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle for an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code. This area of law has experienced recent changes. Therefore, we find it necessary to summarize the development of Pennsylvania's law concerning the requisite cause for a traffic stop prior to addressing Appellant's question presently before this Court.

The relevant statutory authority is 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b), which states:

(b) Authority of police officer.—Whenever a police officer is engaged in a systematic program of checking vehicles or drivers or has reasonable suspicion that a violation of this title is occurring or has occurred, he may stop a vehicle, upon request or signal, for the purpose of checking the vehicle's registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine number or the driver's license, or to secure such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.

75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b). The present form of Section 6308(b) reflects its amendment by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 2004, which inserted a reasonable suspicion standard. The pre-amended version of Section 6308(b) required that an officer have "articulable and reasonable grounds" to suspect a violation. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b) (1998), amended by 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b) (2004).

The "articulable and reasonable grounds" standard required by the pre-amended version of Section 6308(b) was interpreted by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995). In Whitmyer, the defendant was stopped for a suspected violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361, which prohibits driving at an unsafe speed. The defendant was ultimately charged with DUI, possession of marijuana, and failing to drive at a safe speed.

The Supreme Court held that there was no reasonable or articulable basis for the officer to suspect a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code because the officer had not paced the defendant for the required three-tenths of a mile under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3368(a), and the officer's personal estimate of speed did not amount to probable cause. The court noted that "this is not a case where further investigation would lead to a discovery of a violation of the Vehicle Code" because "there is no further evidence that could be obtained from a subsequent stop and investigation." Id. at 1118. The court's ruling rejected the Commonwealth's argument that the prior version of Section 6308(b) demanded onlya reasonable suspicion of a Motor Vehicle Code violation. Instead, the court equated "articulable and reasonable grounds" with a probable cause standard. Id. at 1116.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's holding in Whitmyer, there followed a body of cases that reaffirmed a probable cause standard for vehicle stops based on violations of the Motor Vehicle Code under the pre-amended version of Section 6308(b). See Commonwealth v. Gleason, 567 Pa. 111, 785 A.2d 983 (2001); Commonwealth v. Wituszynski, 567 Pa. 49, 784 A.2d 1284 (2001); Commonwealth v. Cook, 865 A.2d 869 (Pa.Super.2004); Commonwealth v. Battaglia, 802 A.2d 652 (Pa.Super.2002). In Gleason, the court reflected on the semantic difference between the language of the statute and a probable cause standard and reasoned that "when we balance the underlying interests of the individual and the government, the two standards amount to nothing more than a distinction without a difference." Gleason, 785 A.2d at 988.

Though Whitmyer and its progeny required probable cause for vehicle stops based on a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code, this quantum of cause had not been constitutionally necessary for all vehicle stops. See Commonwealth v. Murray, 460 Pa. 53, 331 A.2d 414, 418 (1975). In Murray, our Supreme Court reviewed the legality of a vehicle stop based on suspected criminal activity. The court stated:

The United States Supreme Court in [ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ] and in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), has suggested that even in the absence of probable cause there may be, under certain circumstances, justification for a limited intrusion upon the privacy of an individual. Under these decisions the Court has suggested that a brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining additional information may in fact be reasonable although the officer at that time did not possess probable cause that would justify an arrest. In the Terry, supra and Adams, supra decisions, the Court was required to struggle with the balancing of the right of society and the right of an individual in street encounters. Because a motorist's extreme mobility may otherwise allow him to avoid police confrontation, the State has an equally strong interest in these cases in stopping a moving vehicle to freeze momentarily a situation of suspected criminality. However, these decisions have made it clear that to justify the intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warranted the intrusion. See Adams v. United States [ Williams ] , supra; Terry v. Ohio, supra. Thus, it is also clear that an investigative stop of a moving vehicle[,] to be valid [,] must be based upon objective facts creating a reasonable suspicion that the detained motorist is presently involved in criminal activity.

Id. (citation omitted).

Our Supreme Court's rulings in Murray and twenty years later in Whitmyer articulated distinct, not conflicting, standards for a traffic stop. The court in Murray held that a reasonable suspicion standard was a constitutional threshold of cause to justify a vehicle stop based on suspected criminal activity. The court also stated, however, that probable cause was required when the basis for a traffic stop was a...