My DUI stop is going to the PA Supreme Court

[mcsap]

I made a DUI stop nearly 2 years ago and just got word that the defense is appealing it to the PA Supreme Court.

It was about 0200 ( our bars close by law at 0200) and I was parked in a driveway facing a 2 lane road in a somewhat rural area. I was in marked car but was well hidden. It was mild and I had my engine off. I could hear a car approaching fast from the north of me in the 35 zone. I saw the lone white Honda go past at between 50-55 mph.

I immediately pulled out and caught up to the car at a signal light. When the light turned, the Honda took off again. We are in a hilly area with some homes and woods and curvy roads. . The car again accelerates up to 50-55 mph and I get a .2 mile clock of at least 50. ( PA requires .3 mile clock to actually write a full fledged speeding ticket). During this time, the car crosses the centerline 3 times by a couple of feet and crosses the fog line 3 times. One more time I got her at 45-50 on another 35 zone road.

I purposefully followed this car so far because of recent PA rulings in which simple weaving was ruled NOT GOOD ENOUGH to justify a stop. I also ran the plate and knew I was getting close to the owners home. After the 1.5 mile time from when I first saw the car, I did the stop.

The driver was a 25 yr old female on her way home from a bar. She was VERY intoxicated and I had to hold her so she wouldn't fall. Field tests were not done for her safety.

BAC was .24

I charged her with DUI and it made it past the pre-lim hearing ok.

In downtown court I went to a suppression hearing and the Judge ( Linebaugh) threw out the stop as being illegal. I " DIDN'T have a good reason to stop her with what I saw".

Needless to say I was furious. The DA said they would appeal. The appeal came back in our favor and the defense is now doing the Supreme Court Appeal.

I trust our SC judges have enough common sense to see that I indeed had plenty of grounds for the stop.

[TALLON]

Isn't one speeding infraction reason enough?...let alone three. You'll win, She'll lose.

[mcsap]

It wasn't enough for the county judge.

[ChesCopPodz]

Speeding plus weaving should be more than enough. I don't even see why weaving is not allowed on it's own, weaving into oncoming lanes is how most of these fatal accidents happen in the first place.

[TALLON]

It wasn't enough for the county judge.

Uhhhh, Did you say "UTES"? :D

[mcsap]

If you want to run for Judge Ches, I'll vote for you.

[coyote135]

I also had a DWI case that went to the Supreme Court in my state. It was a cops kid. About two years after the initial conviction, I started getting subpoenas to appear, but before each court date, it somehow was continued. The DWI was an easy slam dunk. I'm not sure what angle the lawyer was fighting it or the final outcome. All I know is that I did my part right....

[acreature]

You don't have a Left of Center type charge? (When she crossed the C/L by a couple feet)

[sbrad]

Weaving within your lane here is enough RAS for a stop. Couple that with speeding (PC) and crossing (more PC- Failure To Maintain Lane) and there would be no problem here. Sounds like a county judge that likes to drink a little himself.

[scott715us]

Did she have any influence on the county judge?? WTF?? That is plenty of reason to nail somebody..Let us know the outcome. I'm sure it will be in your favor.

[Deputy Joe]

What more do you need? All you need to stop a vehicle is reasonable suspicion. This was more, far more than that. Does the circuit judge want you to look for a neon sign in the back window of a car that reads, "Stop me, I am drunk?"

[Drew27k9]

There is no doubt in my mind that she will be convicted.

[Jeff L]

As a prior resident of Chesterfield County with a ticket or two in that county, I feel its safe to say that most anything out of the ordinary is a stoppable infraction that can and will make it through District Court with no problems. The judges there don't take crap from anybody :D

I guess PA officers are not afforded the same luxury. Good luck with your case, mcsap.

[steelcityk9cop]

What more do you need? All you need to stop a vehicle is reasonable suspicion. This was more, far more than that. Does the circuit judge want you to look for a neon sign in the back window of a car that reads, "Stop me, I am drunk?"

Unfortunately in Pennsylvania, our Supreme Court has already ruled that we need PC and not reasonable suspicion to stop cars for vehicle code violations.

MCSAP- We get a lot of attorneys crying “Gleason” here as well. Hopefully we’ll get to read about you at updates next year!!!

For those of you outside the Commonwealth… in Gleason the copper watched a car swerve over the double yellow and the fog lines a number of times…. The judge threw out the PC to stop because the section regarding crossing over the double yellows requires that it create a hazard…. Apparently no cars were coming the other way at the time.

[sbrad]

We had a case upheld in our Supreme Court where the officer was able to articulate how he stopped the guy because he "looked drunk" when he pulled up next to him. ;)