Commonwealth v. Scales

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 19, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at CP-01-CR-0000220-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY, J.

Martha Elaine Scales (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after she was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and driving on roadways laned for traffic.^[1] Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop of her vehicle. Upon review, we affirm.

The affidavit of probable cause filed by Pennsylvania State Trooper Logan Howell states:

On 11/09/19 at approximately 0158 hrs., Tpr. Matthew Hochberg and I were on routine patrol in a marked patrol unit traveling east on Baltimore Pike in Gettysburg Borough when we observed a Grey 2009 Lexus 350ES sedan bearing PA registration KWC9311 make an[] exaggerated wide turn while navigating a right hand curve in the roadway on Baltimore Pike. We continued to follow

2

the vehicle east on Baltimore Pike, at which point we observed the vehicle cross over the white marked fog line multiple times and fluctuate speeds. We also observed the vehicle to have prohibited window tint. We initiated a traffic stop at Baltimore Pike and White Rd

Upon initiating the emergency lights the vehicle had a delayed response to the initiation of a traffic stop. The siren was used multiple times to further gain the operator['s] attention. After the vehicle came to a stop I approached from the driver's side and identified the operator as [Appellant] by her PA driver's license number []. Immediately upon making contact with [Appellant] I detected an odor of alcohol emanating from inside the vehicle. I also detected [Appellant] to have glassy blood shot eyes and slurred speech. [Appellant] related she and her other friends inside the vehicle were traveling from a restaurant where she had dinner and one glass of wine

At this time I requested [Appellant] exit the vehicle to which she refused. After a brief argument [Appellant] reluctantly exited the vehicle. [Appellant] was directed to the rear of her vehicle. While [Appellant] was walking to the rear of her vehicle I observed her having difficulty walking with balance. Standardized Field Sobriety testing was then administered on [Appellant]

During Field Sobriety Testing [Appellant] showed multiple signs of impairment on the HGN, Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand tests. Modified Romburg and Lack of Convergence testing was given to which [Appellant] showed no signs of impairment. NMS Lab results are as follows: Ethanol 171 mg/dL, BAC .171 g/100 mL, Amphetamine 19 ng/mL, Delta-9 Carboxy THC 9.9 ng/mL, and Delta-9 THC 1.3 ng/mL.

Affidavit of Probable Cause, 12/5/19, at 1.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above offenses, after which Appellant filed a suppression motion on the basis that Trooper Howell lacked probable cause to stop her vehicle. The court held a hearing on August 27, 2020, and denied the motion on September 1, 2020. The court then held a bench trial and rendered its guilty verdicts. On January 19, 2021, the court

3

sentenced Appellant to 6 months of probation. She timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents a single issue for our review:

Whether there was a sufficient quantum of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of Appellant's vehicle?

Appellant's Brief at 5.

Appellant asserts the traffic stop based on her violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309(1) (driving on roadways laned for traffic), and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e), (windshield obstructions), was illegal.^[2] Appellant argues:

[Appellant's] vehicle was stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. As such the blood test results that were ultimately obtained as a result of this illegal stop must be suppressed. There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant's vehicle based on 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1). The dash cam and testimony of Tpr. Howell make it abundantly clear that whatever deviations in maintaining her lane of travel, if any, Appellant committed, they were "minor deviations" and safe. Consequently, no probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed to effect a traffic stop for this conduct.

Secondly, there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant's vehicle for alleged violation of illegal window tint. Based on the time of night and distance that Tpr. Howell was from Appellant's vehicle, it was not reasonable for him to suspect Appellant's vehicle was in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e).

Appellant's Brief at 14.

4

Our review is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, [the appellate court is] bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where . . . the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to [ ] plenary review.

Id. "[I]t is the sole province of the suppression court to weigh the credibility of witnesses," and "the suppression court judge is entitled to believe all, part or none of the evidence presented." ...