Judges Opinions, — November 2, 2016 10:00 — 0 Comments

Commonwealth vs. Tracy Jones No. CP-38-CR-0001691-2015

Criminal Action-Driving Under the Influence-Omnibus Pretrial Motion-Illegal Vehicle Stop-Reasonable Suspicion-Vehicle Code Violation-License Plate Lights-Malfunction

Defendant, who was charged with Driving Under the Influence and summary offenses, filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion seeking to suppress all evidence obtained following a stop of his vehicle. Defendant asserted that the stop of his vehicle premised upon the malfunction of one (1) of two (2) license plate lights of the vehicle he was operating was illegal.

1. Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b) provides that a police officer may stop a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that a violation of the Vehicle Code has occurred or is occurring. To justify such a vehicle stop, the officer must possess articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code. Reasonable grounds exist to justify a vehicle stop where an officer observes a Vehicle Code violation that requires no additional investigation. An actual violation need not be established as long as the officer has a reasonable basis to validate the stop.

2. Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 4303(b) requires that every vehicle operated on a highway shall be equipped with a rear lighting system including a license plate light in conformance with the regulations of the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has been directed by the General Assembly to promulgate regulations governing the number, visibility, color, size, type, construction, location and use of lamps and other lighting equipment 75 Pa.C.S § 4301. Title 67 Pa.Code § 153.4(e)(7)(ii) requires that when the headlamps of a vehicle are activated in a steady burning state, the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lights and side marker lamps also shall be activated.

3. Since § 153.4(e)(7)(ii) specifically requires that all applicable license plate lights be illuminated and the officer in this case detected a malfunction of one (1) of the two (2) license plate lights of the vehicle that Defendant was operating, the officer possessed reasonable suspicion to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code such that the vehicle stop was lawful.

L.C.C.C.P. No. CP-38-CR-0001691-2015, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, April 15, 2016.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION NO. CP-38-CR-1691-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TRACY JONES

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2016, in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence and Dismiss Charges is Denied. The Defendant is directed to appear at the Criminal Call of the List scheduled for May 17, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in the designated courtroom. He is also scheduled to appear for the first day of criminal trials scheduled to commence on June 6, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in the designated courtroom.

BY THE COURT:

BRADFORD H. CHARLES, J.

APPEARANCES

Jared Hinsey, Esquire For Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Elizabeth Judd, Esquire For Tracy Jones

PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE

OPINION BY CHARLES, J., April 15, 2016

On June 15, 2015, a police officer effectuated a traffic stop of a car because he observed that one of its two license plate lights was malfunctioning. This traffic stop eventually led to charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Today, the Defendant who was charged asks us to suppress all evidence based on the premise that no police officer can pull over a motorist when only one of two license plate lamps is malfunctioning. For reasons we will articulate in more detail within this Opinion, we reject the Defendant’s argument.

I. Background

Around 1:00 a.m. on June 15, 2015, Patrolmen Stephanos Goumas and Jonathan Morales of the Lebanon City Police Department were stopped at a red light at North 9th and Cumberland Streets. The Officers observed an SUV adjacent to and slightly ahead of them. The license plate appeared to be partially obscured by the angle of view and a malfunctioning left license plate bulb. When the light changed and the Officers were behind the vehicle, they were able to clearly see the plate and confirmed that only the right bulb was working.

Due to the malfunctioning left bulb, the Officers initiated a traffic stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, the Officers noted the odor of alcohol and observed that the driver, Tracy Jones (hereinafter “DEFENDANT”), appeared to be having trouble keeping his eyes open. In addition, his eyes appeared glassy, and he admitted that he had a couple of drinks in the preceding hour. Upon failing field sobriety tests, he was transported to the Good Samaritan Hospital, where he refused chemical testing.

Subsequently, DEFENDANT was charged with Driving under the Influence of Alcohol and two summary offenses. He timely filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress the Evidence and Dismiss the Charges, alleging that the stop was illegal because it was not supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of the Vehicle Code. On February 17, 2016, we held a hearing on the matter and granted the parties leave to submit briefs. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. DISCUSSION

A police officer can stop a vehicle upon a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the Vehicle Code is occurring or has occurred. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308(b). To justify such a stop, the officer must possess “articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of [the Vehicle Code].” Commonwealth v. McElroy, 630 A.2d 35, 38 (Pa.Super. 1993) (internal citations omitted). “Reasonable grounds” exist to justify a stop where an officer observes a Vehicle Code violation that requires no additional investigation. Commonwealth v. Busser, 56 A.3d 419, 423–24 (Pa.Super. 2012). Moreover, an actual violation need not be established, as long as the officer has a reasonable basis to validate the stop. Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 992 A.2d 897, 901 (Pa.Super. 2010), citing Commonwealth v. Benton, 655 A.2d 1030, 1033 (Pa.Super. 1995).

In Commonwealth v. Helmick, No. 807 WDA 2014, 2015 WL 7455841 (Pa.Super. 2015), a State Trooper initiated a traffic stop upon observing the Defendant’s vehicle’s registration light was not illuminated. As in the present case, Defendant was charged with a DUI and challenged the legality of the stop. The Trooper testified that after effectuating the stop, he could see the Defendant’s license plate but was unable to tell whether it was the license plate light or the police cruiser’s own headlights that were the source of illumination. Id. at *2. The Court affirmed that trial court’s reasoning that the Trooper’s observation that the license plate was not illuminated provided reasonable grounds to stop the Defendant’s vehicle. Id. Though this case was not published, we find it persuasive.

Pennsylvania law dictates that “[e]very vehicle operated on a highway shall be equipped with a rear lighting system including…license plate light, in conformance with regulations of the department.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b). The General Assembly required the Department of Transportation to “promulgate regulations governing the number, visibility, color, size, type, construction, location and use of lamps [and] other lighting equipment….” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4301.

The regulations regarding vehicle lights are codified at Title 67 of the Pennsylvania Code. The Code delineates specific rules and inspection requirements regarding lights in § 153, which pertains to “all passenger cars [] and multipurpose passenger vehicles” and specifies that “[w]hen the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps shall also be activated.” 67 Pa. Code § 153.4(e)(7)(ii) (emphasis added).

DEFENDANT argues that he did not violate the lighting requirements of the Vehicle Code because one of the two license plate lamps was lit. He points out that the statute itself is phrased using singular language (“light”) instead of plural (“lights”). While superficially appealing, DEFENDANT’s argument ignores the remaining language contained in Pennsylvania’s statute regarding vehicle lighting; that language provides that the required lights be maintained “in conformance with regulations of the department.” As noted above, those regulations specifically provide that all applicable lights – the plural is employed – be illuminated.

The General Assembly certainly has the ability to delegate regulatory authority to the Department of Transportation. See generally, Commonwealth Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Abraham, 300 A.2d 831 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973). When a statute such as Section 4303 of the Vehicle Code, we must respect the General Assembly’s decision. Doing so in this case clearly requires us to honor the Department’s regulatory scheme that mandates that all lamps be lit.

In addition to the above, we have also searched for guidance within Pennsylvania’s motor vehicle inspection law. Specifically, Section 175 of the Department of Transportation Regulations is entitled “inspection procedure” and provides that a vehicle will fail inspection if “an interior bulb or sealed beam, if originally equipped or installed, fails to light properly…” 67 Pa. Code § 175.80(a)(9)(i). Thus, if a manufacturer-installed license plate lamp like the one at issue in this case fails to operate properly, the vehicle will not pass inspection. It is incongruous to suggest that a police officer is precluded from stopping a vehicle that does not comply with Pennsylvania’s inspection law; such a vehicle should not be driven on a roadway and police must be able to investigate and enforce regulations that are clearly intended to protect the public from vehicles that are not safe for use on public highways.

Whenever an officer possesses reasonable suspicion to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code, that officer can effectuate a traffic stop. In this case, an officer detected a malfunction of DEFENDANT’s motor vehicle and effectuated a stop in order to investigate that malfunction. Because the nature of the malfunction was important enough to be specifically addressed within regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation, we cannot and will not declare the officer’s decision to stop DEFENDANT to be unlawful. Accordingly, DEFENDANT’s Motion to Suppress Evidence will be denied.

1) Headlights must be activated on a vehicle that is driven at night. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302.

2) In addition to the above, we note that the Department’s regulatory scheme regarding lighted lamps is very specific. In fact, 67 Pa. Code § 153.4 contains over 10 pages dealing with how lights are to be employed and lit on vehicles. It is hornbook law that when two statutory/regulatory provisions conflict, the specific controls over the general. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1933.

 

About the author

Ben has written 966 articles for Lebanon County Legal Journal

Search