J-S34009-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CORY FRANCIS WASIAKOWSKI,

Appellant No. 1361 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 21, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002782-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, OTT and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2015

Cory Francis Wasiakowski appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed by the trial court after it found him guilty of two counts of driving 

under the influence (“DUI”). We affirm.

Pennsylvania State Trooper Karri Dodson was on patrol in a marked 

police cruiser with her partner at approximately 11:00 p.m. Trooper Dodson 

was in the passenger seat. A truck traveling in the opposite direction 

crossed the center line as it negotiated a curve. The troopers turned around 

and began to follow the vehicle. While following the vehicle, Trooper Dodson 

observed the operator of the truck drive in the middle of the roadway. At 

that point, the officers activated the police vehicle’s lights and sirens and 

effectuated a traffic stop. Trooper Dodson testified that she and her partner 
J-S34009-15

- 2 -

pulled the driver of the vehicle over because the truck had violated 75 

Pa.C.S. § 3309, roadways laned for traffic, and possibly was DUI. 

When Trooper Dodson approached and asked Appellant for his license 

and registration, he did not immediately respond. Trooper Dodson indicated 

that she instantly detected the odor of alcohol. Appellant’s eyes were 

bloodshot and he failed field sobriety tests. Appellant was arrested and 

taken for a blood draw. Appellant’s blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was 

.281%. 

Appellant litigated a suppression motion contesting the validity of the 

traffic stop. The suppression court determined that police had both probable 

cause and reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. The matter proceeded 

to a bench trial. The court found Appellant guilty of DUI--general 

impairment and DUI--highest rate. Thereafter, on July 21, 2014, the court 

sentenced Appellant to twelve months county intermediate punishment. 

This timely appeal ensued.1 Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is as follows.

Whether the trial court erred in denying Wasiakowski’s motion to 

suppress evidence where the results of a blood alcohol test and 

field sobriety testing were preceded by an unlawful stop and 

arrest in violation of Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution and the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United 

States Constitution.

____________________________________________

1 The trial court did not direct Appellant to file and serve a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, but indicated that the 

reasons for its suppression ruling could be elicited from its findings of fact 

and conclusions of law issued after the suppression hearing. 
J-S34009-15

- 3 -

Appellant’s brief at 2. 

In evaluating a suppression ruling, we consider the evidence of the 

Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below, and any evidence of the 

defendant that is uncontradicted when examined in the context of the 

suppression record. Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325, 330 

(Pa.Super. 2012). This Court is bound by the factual findings of the 

suppression court where the record supports those findings and may only 

reverse when the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are in error. Id.

Appellant argues that police effectuated a traffic stop without 

reasonable suspicion that he was driving under the influence or probable 

cause that he violated the Motor Vehicle Code by crossing over into another 

lane of traffic. He submits that “[t]here is no indication that [his] crossing of 

the center line was done unsafely[.]” Appellant’s brief at 6. Appellant adds 

that he was “negotiating a curve in the roadway[,]” and that Trooper Dodson 

acknowledged that it is “common for cars to cross center lines when 

negotiating curves in a roadway.” Id. 

The Commonwealth responds that Appellant ignores the applicable 

standard of review. It contends that the suppression court determined that 

Appellant drove his truck over the center lane of traffic and police observed 

the vehicle drifting from lane to lane. Accordingly, it reasons that the court 

did not err in determining that police had reasonable suspicion to pull 
J-S34009-15

- 4 -

Appellant over for suspicion of drunk driving and Appellant’s violation of the 

vehicle code. 

Instantly, Appellant has failed to ensure that the suppression court 

transcripts, with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law contained 

therein, or the transcript of trial are in the certified record. The certified 

record does not contain an indication that Appellant requested these records 

be transcribed. Accordingly, Appellant’s issues could be construed as 

waived. See Commonwealth v. Osellanie, 597 A.2d 130 (Pa.Super. 

1991); compare Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d 1101, 1106 (Pa. 

1998). However, these documents are contained in the reproduced record. 

While this Court generally may only consider facts that have been duly 

certified in record, Commonwealth v. Young, 317 A.2d 258, 264 (Pa. 

1974), where the accuracy of a document is undisputed and contained in the 

reproduced record, we may consider it. Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 

A.3d 1139, 1145 n.4 (Pa. 2012). Thus, we have reviewed the transcripts 

and find that the trial court’s legal conclusions are supported by its factual 

findings. 

We add that there is a video recording of the incident, which is in the 

certified record. That video demonstrates that police witnessed Appellant 

driving in the middle of the roadway despite not traversing around a curve at 

that particular juncture. In addition, the recording depicts Appellant’s 

vehicle crossing over the center lane on multiple other occasions. Thus, 
J-S34009-15

- 5 -

police had probable cause to find that Appellant violated the Motor Vehicle 

Code by weaving between lanes. Further, police had reasonable suspicion to 

conclude that Appellant was driving under the influence based on the same 

facts. The court’s suppression ruling was not in error.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/22/2015