Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, v. William Zeiders

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, v. William Zeiders

Criminal Action-Constitutional Law-Fourth Amendment-Search and Seizure-Omnibus Pretrial Motion-Suppression of Evidence-Vehicle Stop-Probable Cause-Driving Within Single Lane-Driving Under the Influence-Crossing Center and Fog Lines-Forcing Police Vehicle onto Roadway Shoulder

William Zeiders (“Defendant”) was charged with Driving Under the Influence and the summary offense of Driving Within Single Lane, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1), after entering the lane of travel where a law enforcement officer was operating his vehicle such that the law enforcement officer had to pull his vehicle onto the shoulder of the roadway to avoid collision.  The law enforcement officer followed Defendant’s vehicle until reaching a safe place to effectuate a traffic stop, during which Defendant’s vehicle crossed the center and fog lines of the roadway several times.  Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion seeking suppression of evidence on the basis that the law enforcement officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion supporting the stop. 

1.  Probable cause is needed for a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle for failure to maintain lane, which is a non-investigatory violation. 

2.  The officer must articulate specific facts at the time of the questioned stop that would provide probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle was in violation of some provision of the Vehicle Code.

3.  A vehicle crossing into the opposing lane of traffic creates a serious safety hazard with observation by the law enforcement officer of the vehicle crossing over the center line of the roadway several times being sufficient to establish probable cause to effectuate a stop. 

4.  When the law enforcement officer observed Defendant’s vehicle cross the center line and enter the opposite lane of travel such at the law enforcement officer was forced to take the evasive action of pulling his vehicle onto the shoulder of the roadway, the law enforcement officer possessed probable cause to initiate a traffic stop for a violation of § 3309(1). 

L.C.C.C.P. No. CP-38-CR-0000901-2023, Opinion by John C. Tylwalk, President Judge, February 16, 2024.   

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                                 PENNSYLVANIA

                                                             CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      :           NO. CP-38-CR-901-2023

                                                                                    :

            v.                                                                     :

                                                                                    :

WILLIAM ZEIDERS                                                :

                                                                ORDER OF COURT

            AND NOW, this 16^th day of February, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant’s Pretrial Omnibus Motion, the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted on December 13, 2023, and the Briefs submitted by the parties, it is hereby Ordered that said Motion is DENIED.  Defendant is directed to appear for the Call of the List scheduled for April 2, 2024 and the Term of Criminal Jury Trials to commence on April 22, 2024.

                                                                        BY THE COURT:

                                                                        _____________________________, P.J.

                                                                        JOHN C. TYLWALK

JCT/jah

Cc:   Daniel Linares-Herrador, Esquire/Assistant District Attorney

         Shawn Dorward, Esquire/The Dorward Law Firm, LLC/4400 Deer Path Road,

             Suite 102/Harrisburg, PA  17110

         Leslie Fillak/Court Administration

         Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk

                        IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                                 PENNSYLVANIA

                                                             CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      :           NO. CP-38-CR-901-2023

                                                                                    :

            v.                                                                     :

                                                                                    :

WILLIAM ZEIDERS                                                :

APPEARANCES:

DANIEL LINARES-HERRADOR, ESQUIRE                FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

SHAWN DORWARD, ESQUIRE                                      FOR WILLIAM ZEIDERS

THE DORWARD LAW FIRM, LLC

OPINION, TYLWALK, P.J., FEBRUARY 16, 2024.

            Defendant is charged with two counts of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol^[1] and the summary offense of Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic^[2] for an incident involving a traffic stop on May 27, 2023 on Gravel Hill Road near Derry Lane in East Hanover Township.  Defendant has filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion contending that the police lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop.^[3]  We conducted a hearing on the Motion on December 13, 2023.  The transcript of the hearing has been lodged, the parties have filed post-hearing Briefs, and the matter is now before us for resolution.

            At the hearing, Trooper George Shimko of the Pennsylvania State Police testified that he was on patrol duty on May 27, 2023.  At approximately 1:11 a.m. on that date, he and Trooper Kelliher were driving northbound on Gravel Hill Road near Derry Lane in East Hanover Township when they were approached by a 2004 Dodge Ram traveling in the southbound lane of Gravel Hill Road.  As the Dodge Ram approached the police vehicle, it entered their lane of travel and Trooper Kelliher was forced to pull onto the shoulder to avoid getting hit. 

Trooper Shimko confirmed that this initial interaction with the Dodge Ram constituted a violation of the Vehicle Code.  As the Troopers intended to pull over the driver at that point, Trooper Kelliher made a U-turn and began following the Dodge Ram.  The Troopers were familiar with the area and knew that there were no safe places to pull over the vehicle in the immediate vicinity.  They decided to wait to pull over the Dodge Ram until they reached a church area which was located near Palmyra.  While they were driving behind the Dodge Ram to that location, they observed it weaving as it crossed over the center line and the fog line several times.    Trooper Shimko noted that this confirmed the Troopers’ initial observation that the driver was in violation of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.  When the Troopers stopped the vehicle, Defendant was identified as the driver. 

On cross-examination, Trooper Shimko confirmed that Defendant’s vehicle completely crossed the center dotted line and had come into the Troopers’ lane of travel as he was approaching their vehicle and that they had to swerve onto the shoulder to avoid getting hit.  Trooper Shimko also noted that there were numerous curves in the road once they had made the U-turn and began following Defendant’s vehicle and that Defendant was weaving and having difficulty negotiating the curves.  Trooper Shimko observed Defendant cross over the center line and the fog line several times.

The Troopers activated their vehicle’s dash camera after they made the U-turn which filmed Defendant’s vehicle for approximately three minutes as the Troopers were following it.  At the hearing, Defense counsel played the video from the police vehicle for the Court.  The video showed Defendant’s vehicle weaving back and forth onto and over the center lines and the fog lines on the road.  Defendant points out that the video does not show him cross over the center line when other vehicles were approaching from the opposite direction.

Defendant contends that the traffic stop was illegal because the Troopers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop him.  He further claims that the stop was invalid because he did not create a risk of harm to any other individuals or vehicles.

Defendant is charged with the summary offense of Driving Within Single Lane pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3309(1):

A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.

75 Pa.C.S.A. §3309(1). 

            A police officer needs probable cause to stop a vehicle for failure to maintain lane, which is a non-investigatory violation.  Commonwealth v. Quijano-Ortiz, 2014 WL 10917028 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa. Super. 2010).  It is incumbent upon the officer to articulate specific facts possessed by him, at the time of the questioned stop, which would provide probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the driver was in violation of some provision of the Vehicle Code.  Id.

To determine whether probable cause exists, we must consider whether the facts and circumstances which are within the knowledge of the officer at the time of the arrest, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.

Commonwealth v. Cephus, 208 A.3d 1096, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2019).

            In Quijano-Ortiz, the appellate court found that the police officer had probable cause to stop the defendant for a violation of Section 3309(1) when he drove his vehicle over the centerline four times and nearly struck a parked vehicle.  In Feczko, the court found that the police had probable cause to stop the defendant for a violation of Section 3309(1) when his vehicle crossed over the white fog line numerous times and over the centerline into oncoming traffic.  The court in Feczko noted that, although the defendant’s erratic driving did not force any oncoming vehicles to take evasive action, his “deviations from his lane of travel created a significant safety hazard on the roadway.”  Feczko, 10 A.3d at 1292.  In Cephus, the court noted the serious safety hazard presented by a vehicle crossing into the opposing lane of traffic and found that probable cause existed when the police observed the defendant’s vehicle cross over the center line several times. Cephus, 208 A.3d at 1100. 

            In this case, Trooper Shimko observed Defendant cross the center line from the southbound lane of Gravel Hill Road and enter the northbound lane far enough that Trooper Kelliher was forced to take the evasive action of pulling onto the shoulder of the road in order to avoid a head-on collision.  At that point, the Troopers had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop of Defendant for the offense of failure to maintain his lane of travel under Section 3309(1).  Defendant’s deviation from his lane of travel created a significant safety hazard on the roadway when he crossed into the northbound lane.  The remainder of Trooper’s Shimko’s observations of Defendant crossing the fog line and the center line until the traffic stop could be conducted at a safe location simply supported the Troopers’ probable cause to stop Defendant.

            For these reasons, we will deny Defendant’s Pretrial Motion and direct him to appear for the Call of the List scheduled for April 2, 2024 and the Term of Criminal Jury Trials to commence on April 22, 2024.

---

[1] Counts 1 and 2, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§3802(b) and 3802(a)(1), respectively.

[2] 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3309(1).

[3] In his Motion and supporting Brief, Defendant challenges the admissibility of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and the results of the Portable Breath Test.  However, these issues were not raised at the hearing on the Pretrial Motion and Defendant indicated that he was proceeding only with his challenge to the validity of the traffic stop.