J-S41015-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THOMAS JAMAR BEAL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 373 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 8, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-21-CR-0001389-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JANUARY 13, 2023

Thomas Jamar Beal appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, after being convicted, 

following a non-jury trial, of three counts of driving under the influence (DUI)

and related offenses. On appeal, Beal contends that the trial court erred by 

not suppressing the fruits of an unlawful vehicle stop. After careful review, 

we affirm.

On January 25, 2021, at 1:37 a.m., Pennsylvania State Troopers 

Nathaniel Wachsmuth and Thomas Clark were traveling in a marked patrol 

vehicle in the area of North Spring Garden and East High Streets in Carlisle 

Borough. The troopers’ vehicle was equipped with an in-car computer and a 

high-definition digital camera system. See Affidavit of Probable Cause, 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41015-22

- 2 -

3/3/21, at 1. As the Troopers were “just coming around the corner off of 

Louther Street on to Spring Garden [Street],” Trooper Wachsmuth observed 

Beal, driving a white SUV, enter the intersection of East High Street from North 

Spring Garden Street and make a left turn onto East High Street without 

activating his turn signal. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/23/21, at 16; see 

also Dash Cam Video, Camera 0, Video 1, 1/25/21, at 01:34:52-56. Trooper 

Wachsmuth followed Beal’s vehicle for approximately two miles as it 

approached Interstate 81 (I-81). Trooper Wachsmuth testified that as he 

followed the SUV, he saw it “weaving within the lane designators prior to 

making a right-hand-turn onto the on-ramp for I-81” and watched the vehicle 

“cross over the center white divider line with both . . . driver’s side tires.” 

N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/23/21, at 6. At that point, Trooper Wachsmuth 

activated his lights and sirens and initiated a traffic stop for Beal’s failure to 

use a turn signal and for crossing over the center divider line. Id. at 7. 

When Trooper Wachsmuth approached Beal’s vehicle, he immediately 

noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming from the SUV and observed that 

Beal’s eyes were “bloodshot and glassy.” Id. at 8-9. Trooper Wachsmuth 

asked Beal for his license. Beal, who had difficulty with his phone trying to 

find the proper documentation, ultimately told the trooper that he did not have 

a license at the time and that he was in the process of getting his license 

restored. Id. at 9. Trooper Wachsmuth then ran Beal’s license number in the 

police data base and discovered that it was suspended; the trooper also 
J-S41015-22

- 3 -

verified Beal’s license suspension through PennDOT’s certified driving 

records.1 

Trooper Wachsmuth asked Beal to exit the vehicle and asked Beal if 

there was any marijuana inside the vehicle or if Beal had smoked anything 

that day. Beal told Trooper Wachsmuth that he had “smoked Loud at a hookah 

lounge”2that evening, but that there was no marijuana in his SUV. Id. at 10. 

Trooper Wachsmuth then asked Beal to perform standard field sobriety tests, 

including the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand, the lack of convergency 

eye test, and the Modified Romberg Test.3 Id. at 9. Trooper Wachsmuth 

observed several indicia of impairment as Beal performed the tests. Id. at 

11. As a result, Trooper Wachsmuth placed Beal under arrest for suspected 

DUI. Id. Beal was transported to the Carlisle UPMC Pinnacle Hospital, where 

he consented to a blood draw. Beal’s blood tested positive for three types of 

THC and alprazolam. Id. 

____________________________________________

1 At the time of the traffic stop, Beal had eight prior convictions for driving 

under suspension. 

2 Trooper Wachsmuth interpreted this to mean that Beal had been smoking 

marijuana. Id. at 10. In fact, “loud weed” is a very potent and pungent form

of cannabis. See https://greencamp.com/what-is-loud-weed/ (last 

visited 11/30/22).

3 The Romberg Test, a field sobriety test administered for 30 seconds by law

enforcement, involves an individual standing with his or her shoes on, feet 

together, eyes closed, head tilted back, and hands to his or her side with no 

added support. https://www.audiologyresearch.org/romberg-test/ (last 

visited 11/29/22).
J-S41015-22

- 4 -

Beal was subsequently charged with4 DUI-controlled substance

(Schedule 1),

5 DUI—controlled substance (Metabolite),6 DUI—controlled 

substance (impaired ability),

7

failure to use required signals for turning 

movements,8 and driving under suspension—6

th or subsequent offense.9

On September 20, 2021, Beal filed a pre-trial motion to suppress 

claiming that the vehicle stop was illegal where Beal “used his turn signal to 

make the left turn” and “did not cross over the lane line markings.” Omnibus 

Pretrial Motion, 9/20/21, at ¶¶ 15-16. The court held a suppression hearing 

on November 23, 2021, at which Trooper Wachsmuth testified. Following the 

hearing, the court entered an order dismissing Beal’s suppression motion, 

finding that “the trooper’s testimony was credible and that the Commonwealth 

has met its burden of proof.”10 Order, 12/1/21. A non-jury trial was held on 

____________________________________________

4 Beal was also charged with driving on roadways laned for traffic. He was 

acquitted of this offense, however, at his non-jury trial. N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 

1/20/22, at 26.

5 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 (D)(1)(i).

6 Id. at § 3802(D)(1)(iii).

7 Id. at § 3802(D)(2).

8 Id. at § 3334(A).

9 Id. at § 1543(A).

10 Notably, at the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth’s 

attorney stated that she agreed with the public defender that “the weaving 

within [Beal’s] lane of travel on Trindle Road wouldn’t necessarily be a traffic 

violation in and of itself.” N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/23/21, at 20. Thus, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S41015-22

- 5 -

January 20, 2022, at which Trooper Wachsmuth testified. Following trial, the 

Honorable Christylee L. Peck found Beal guilty of all offenses. Beal was 

sentenced to 72 hours of incarceration and a $1000 fine for the DUI offenses,11

a $25 fine for the failure to signal offense, and 30 days of incarceration and a 

$1,000 fine for the suspended license offense, to run consecutive to Beal’s 

DUI sentence.

Beal filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Beal raises the following 

issue: “Did the court err when it denied [Beal’s] omnibus pretrial motion to 

suppress evidence?” Appellant’s Brief, at 6.

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s 

denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether 

the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the 

legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. 

Commonwealth v. Jones, [] 874 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa. Super. 

2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. LaMonte, [] 859 A2d 495, 

499 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution 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 record supports the findings of the 

suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may 

reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal 

conclusions based upon the facts.

____________________________________________

we confine our review to whether the trooper had probable cause to stop Beal 

for allegedly failing to use his turn signal when making a left-hand turn.

11 For purposes of sentencing, counts two and three (DUI—Metabolite and 

DUI—impaired ability) merged with count 1 (DUI—Schedule 1).
J-S41015-22

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14, 26-27 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(citations omitted). 

An appellate court’s scope of review in a suppression case is limited to 

the evidentiary record of the pre-trial hearing12 on the suppression motion. 

In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013). Moreover, “[i]t is within the suppression 

court’s sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and 

the weight to be given their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 

A.3d 530, 542 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Clemens, 66 

A.3d 373, 378 (Pa. Super. 2013)). If appellate review of the suppression 

court’s decision “turns on allegations of legal error,” then the trial court’s legal 

____________________________________________

12 At the suppression hearing, the defense argued:

Judge, we would ask the [c]ourt to grant our suppression motion, 

Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress. We don’t believe that the 

video [was] clear in showing that there was no turn signal 

used. By the time the trooper is even entering Spring Garden 

Street with the [video] running, the car is already mid[-]turn at 

that point. By the time he gets off Spring Garden, the car is 

already turned; and for he said less than two miles, but even for 

that approximate distance, he said there was some weaving within 

the lane, which, again, I argue that is not a violation of the Vehicle 

Code. 

* * *

I don’t think there was enough here to show that there was 

any kind of impaired driving and a violation of the Vehicle 

Code. I don’t think the video clearly shows what the testimony 

was today, and because of that, we are asking the [c]ourt to 

suppress the stop and any evidence as a result thereof.

N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/23/21, at 18-19 (emphasis added).
J-S41015-22

- 7 -

conclusions are nonbinding on appeal and subject to plenary review. 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2017).

It is well established that:

A police officer has the authority to stop a vehicle when he or she 

has reasonable suspicion that a violation of the [V]ehicle [C]ode 

has taken place for the purpose of obtaining necessary information 

to enforce the provisions of the code. 75 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6308(b). 

However, if the violation is such that it requires no additional 

investigation, the officer must have probable cause to initiate the 

stop.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101, 1105 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted). 

Beal contends13 the vehicle stop was illegal where the police video 

footage “did not clearly show” that Beal failed to use a turn signal as he turned

____________________________________________

13 Beal also argues in his appellate brief that:

The video showed that it was dark outside and the street that the 

affiant was initially travelling on, East Louther Street, has 

evergreen-type trees on the right side, as the vehicle is 

approaching the intersection with North Spring Garden Street. 

This would have made it difficult to see around the corner onto 

North Spring Garden Street.

Appellant’s Brief, at 11. Beal did not raise this specific argument at the 

suppression hearing and his suppression motion is devoid of any claim that 

the officer’s vision was impaired by road-side trees such that he could not see 

Beal fail to signal before making the left-hand turn. See N.T. Suppression 

Hearing, 11/23/21, at 15-17 (public defender’s cross-examination of Trooper 

Wachsmuth), id. at 18 (public defender arguing video not clear showing no 

turn signal used and “[b]y the time the trooper is even entering Spring Garden 

Street with the [video] running, the car is already mid[-]turn at that point”). 

In any event, the suppression court viewed the video footage, which would 

have included any brush or vegetation on the side of Louther Street and 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S41015-22

- 8 -

left from Hight Street onto Spring Garden Street and where Trooper 

Wachsmuth “was not in a position to view [Beal] as he [] began to make the 

left turn.” Appellant’s Brief, at 9-10. We disagree.

Trooper Wachsmuth testified that he clearly observed the SUV at the 

subject intersection “before it would have been captured on [the trooper’s] 

camera.” See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/23/21, at 17. Moreover, in her 

Rule 1925(a) opinion, the suppression judge states that she determined 

Trooper Wachsmuth’s view of the turn was better than that of his vehicle’s 

camera and that the portion of the video depicting Beal’s car turning through 

the intersection had a “grainy quality” making it “not clear” as to whether “the 

turn signal is being used.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/16/22, at 3-4. Additionally, 

the suppression judge stated that she watched the video and that it supported 

Trooper Wachsmuth’s testimony that he could see Beal’s vehicle as it made 

the left-hand turn. Id. at 7, 8 n.33.

Therefore, while the video may not clearly or completely capture 

whether the SUV’s turn signal was activated as it made the left-hand turn, the 

video does not contradict the trooper’s first-hand observation of Beal failing

to use his left turn signal. Id. at 16 (Trooper Wachsmuth testifying video first 

shows SUV when it is “[j]ust entering the intersection”); id. at 22 (Trooper 

____________________________________________

determined that Trooper Wachsmuth was credible and that he had probable 

cause to stop Beal.
J-S41015-22

- 9 -

Wachsmuth testifying on re-direct examination he saw SUV at intersection 

“before it [was] captured on [his] camera”).

This is not a case where the police video footage contradicts or rebuts

Trooper Wachsmuth’s testimony. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 116 A.3d 

1139, 1143 (Pa. Super. 2015) (where officer's testimony at suppression 

hearing not consistent with what was depicted on police video, this Court 

reversed suppression court, considering it “one of those rare cases where a 

dash cam video, which was made a part of the certified record, can contradict 

a trial court’s factual finding often based on its credibility determinations”); 

see also Commonwealth v. Padilla, 270 A.3d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2021)

(Table)14 (where officer’s body cam footage did not capture officer’s initial 

interaction with defendant car’s other occupants and where officer’s body cam 

did not reveal everything officer observed, trial court was free to credit 

officer’s testimony where the footage does not contradict that testimony).

15

 

Rather, the relevant video footage fails to clearly depict the events as Beal 

proceeded through the intersection making the left-hand turn.

Because the suppression court specifically found Trooper Wachsmuth 

credible, id. at 20, which included his testimony that he personally observed 

Beal make a left-hand turn without using his turn signal, the court correctly 

____________________________________________

14 Commonwealth v. Padilla, appeal denied, 282 A.3d 274 (Pa. 2022).

15 A Superior Court unpublished memorandum decision filed after May 1, 

2019, may be cited for its persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1), (2).
J-S41015-22

- 10 -

concluded that the Commonwealth met its burden of proof. See

Commonwealth v. Goral, 222 A.3d 802 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Table)

16

(distinguishing Griffin and concluding where video did not “blatantly 

contradict the evidence supporting [defendant’s] conviction,” trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in finding defendant committed summary offenses, 

including failure to come to a complete stop).

Under these circumstances, we find no merit to Beal’s contention on 

appeal. The suppression court was free to credit Trooper Wachsmuth’s 

testimony where the video footage did not contradict that testimony. See

Luczki, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Ford, 141 A.3d 547, 556 (Pa. 

Super. 2016) (“This is not a case where the evidence is so weak and 

inconclusive that no probability of fact can be drawn from it.”). Moreover, 

Trooper Wachsmuth’s observations, alone, are legally sufficient to provide 

probable cause to stop a vehicle for a Vehicle Code violation. See also 

Commonwealth v. Calabrese, 184 A.3d 164 (Pa. Super. 2018). Thus, we 

conclude that the suppression court did not err in denying Beal’s motion to 

suppress where the Commonwealth established that Trooper Wachsmuth had 

probable cause to stop Beal for failing to use his turn signal.

____________________________________________

16 See supra at n.8.
J-S41015-22

- 11 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/13/2023