Case Title: Commonwealth v. Peters, R., Aplt (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-111-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RANDY ALLAN PETERS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 38 WAP 2007 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 10, 2007 at No. 1471 WDA 2005 affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County entered March 31, 2005 at No. CP-61-CR-0001105-2003. 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. 2007) ARGUED: September 8, 2008 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: FEBRUARY 19, 2009 Although I do not disagree with the majority’s result in this case, I disagree with its adoption of the Superior Court’s analysis of the “hot pursuit”/”fresh pursuit” provisions of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(2), pursuant to these facts. The officer here responded to a report of a vehicle hitting a telephone pole — the Superior Court held this response constituted an immediate onset of pursuit, see Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2007); the majority agreed. Majority Slip Op., at 5. Such a notion could only be possible if “pursuit” means pursuing the investigation, not the culprit. According to the Superior Court’s holding, the commencement of any investigation would become a pursuit, as its object is the [J-111-2008] - 2 eventual capture of the perpetrator — this is not what is contemplated by the concept of hot or fresh pursuit, statutory or otherwise. The court further stated the officer “chased” appellant “from one scene to the next.” See Peters, at 1219-20. Clearly, there was no chasing done here — chasing connotes persons in motion, one after the other, whether in sight of one another or not. Police searched for appellant, but did not chase him anywhere. Here, appellant called the police, and other officers already arrived. The arresting officer simply drove to appellant’s home; he did not “chase” appellant anywhere. It is also questionable whether the officer pursued appellant “continuously” and “without interruption”; since the theory is the “chase” started with the radio call, it must be that the half-hour on-scene investigation was not an interruption of the “chase.” The police did nothing wrong here, but there was no hot, uninterrupted pursuit that began the moment of the report of an accident. Therefore, while I would find the facts support the propriety of the arrest and affirm the conviction, I would not do so on the basis of the Superior Court’s reasoning.