Commonwealth v. Jacoby

• Decision Date: 16 November 1973
• Citation: 226 Pa.Super. 19,311 A.2d 666
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Ralph JACOBY, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

311 A.2d 666

226 Pa.Super. 19

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Ralph JACOBY, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

November 16, 1973.

John D. DiGiacomo, Public Defender, Easton, for appellant.

Charles H. Spaziani, Dist. Atty., Salvador J. Salazar, Asst. Dist Atty., Easton, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, President Judge, and WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN SPAULDING, CERCONE and SPAETH, JJ.

HOFFMAN Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Appellant contends that the arrest without a warrant was invalid, and that evidence seized as a result thereof should have been suppressed.

The record reveals that the police officer when he came to the scene of the accident observed a car hanging over the 4th Street bridge in Bethlehem. The appellant Jacoby, was standing outside the car. The officer asked Jacoby if he was the driver of the car and the appellant answered affirmatively. Appellant was then taken to St. Luke's Hospital for medical treatment. At the hospital he was arrested, without a warrant, and given his warnings. He also signed a consent form for a blood sample, which showed a blood alcohol content of .20%.

The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code provides: vides: '(p)eace officers, . . . may arrest, Upon view, any person violating any provisions of this act, where the offense is designated a felony or a misdemeanor . . ..' ^[1] (emphasis added). The lower court held that an arrest is made 'on view' where the defendant is intoxicated at the time of the arrest and admits that he was driving the vehicle. We disagree. In Commonwealth v. Reeves, 223 Pa.Super. 51, 297 A.2d 142 (1972), a case apposite to the instant case we said at 52--54, 297 A.2d at 143: '(a) police officer may only make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor 'where he has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor Is being committed in his presence' . . . (and) (t)his principle has so long been common knowledge that in 1899 the Michigan Supreme Court enunciated this rule and said that the concept was so elementary that no authorities need be cited for the proposition.'

Here the officer arrived on the scene after the accident, never saw the appellant driving the car, and first saw the appellant standing outside the car. We understand the legislative standard to be that an officer may arrest without a warrant Only 'upon view' of the misdemeanor. We cannot accept the conclusion of the trial court that the statutory...