J.A21003/15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

MELISSA ARNDT, :

:

Appellant : No. 3571 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 20, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County 

Criminal Division No(s).: CP-39-CR-0001277-2014

BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2015

Appellant, Melissa Arndt, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, following her guilty 

plea to driving under the influence of alcohol.1 She argues the trial court 

erred in failing to suppress evidence seized during a DUI checkpoint, 

because the checkpoint was not performed in accordance with the 

appropriate guidelines. We affirm.

We state the facts and procedural history as set forth by the trial 

court:

On September 5, 2013, a [DUI Checkpoint] was 

established in the 140 block of West Main Street, 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b).
J.A21003/15

- 2 -

Macungie, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, that ran from 

approximately 11:30 P.M. to 3:30 A.M. on September 6, 

2013. Prior to the commencement of the DUI Checkpoint, 

the officers involved in this highway safety program 

attended a meeting where they were briefed as to the 

guidelines and expectations of the DUI Checkpoint, and the 

designated roles and duties were assigned. At this DUI 

Checkpoint, every vehicle was to be stopped for 

approximately 30 seconds.4 There were written Sobriety 

Checkpoint Instructions that were reviewed at this 

meeting. 

Sergeant Travis Kocher of the Macungie Police 

Department is the Coordinator of Events, Rovers and DUI 

Checkpoint. Sergeant Kocher participated in the planning 

of the DUI Checkpoint established on September 5, 2013 

in the Borough of Macungie. Prior to the implementation 

of the DUI Checkpoint, Sergeant Kocher created a map 

that was submitted to the Coordinator of the Lehigh 

County DUI Task Force, Sergeant Jason Negrom, with 

whom he works closely.5 The location of the DUI 

Checkpoint was determined by Sergeant Kocher and 

Sergeant Negrom, based on mobile awareness studies and 

statistical data including the number of DUI incidents in 

the Borough of Macungie and the number of accidents in 

the Borough of Macungie. Main Street is the main 

thoroughfare in the Borough of Macungie, and 60 of the 

118 DUI incidents that occurred in the Borough of 

Macungie from approximately 2009 through 2014 

happened on said street. 

At approximately 12:30 A.M., [Appellant] traveled 

northbound through the DUI Checkpoint.6 Officer Todd 

Bernhard of the Macungie Police Department, an assigned 

contact officer, stopped [Appellant] and briefly engaged 

her in conversation.7 Officer Bernhard inquired if 

[Appellant] had anything to drink, and [she] stated that 

she had consumed alcohol earlier in the evening 

During this brief stop, Officer Bernhard’s cover officer 

pointed out to Officer Bernhard a red plastic cup located on 

the rear passenger side floor mat of the vehicle containing 

some kind of liquid. When Officer Bernhard inquired what 

was in the cup, [Appellant] denied even having a cup in 
J.A21003/15

- 3 -

the vehicle. [Appellant] eventually relinquished the cup, 

which had an odor of alcoholic beverage. Consequently, 

[Appellant] was asked to step out of her vehicle and was 

escorted to the testing area, where she was administered a 

series of field sobriety tests. [She] failed these tests. 

[Appellant] was transported to the Lehigh County 

Central Booking Center where her blood was drawn.8

Analysis of her blood revealed a blood alcohol content of 

.14.

_________________

4

In the event that traffic would begin to back up, the 

Coordinator of the Lehigh County DUI Task Force would 

determine if fewer cars would be stopped, i.e., every other 

car. However, due to the fact that the Borough of 

Macungie is small, with only approximately 200 to 300 

vehicles passing through the DUI Checkpoint, no changes 

needed to be made to this procedure on this date or in the 

past thirteen (13) years. The written procedure to be 

following if this traffic situation would ever arise is that 

there is a prior administrative decision as to what to do in 

the event that traffic backs up.

On this evening, 231 vehicles passed the DUI 

Checkpoint. There were 3 DUI alcohol arrests, 1 DUI drug 

arrest, 1 possession of marijuana arrest, 1 possession with 

intent to deliver marijuana arrest, 1 possession of 

marijuana and underage drinking arrest, and 6 traffic 

citations on this evening. These statistics were later 

submitted to PennDOT.

5 The initial sign, “Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead” is placed 

400 feet from the initial contact area. The “Be Prepared To 

Stop” sign is placed 200 feet from the initial sign. The 

next sign is “Slow Checkpoint Ahead Mini-Cade,” which is 

placed 200 feet from the second sign. Each additional 

marker is then place 30 feet apart. The location of the 

contact officer and the cover officer are also delineated on 

the map.

6

[Appellant] was the sole occupant in the vehicle and she 

was crying. [She] indicated that she had gotten into an
J.A21003/15

- 4 -

argument/altercation with someone prior to approaching 

the checkpoint.

7 Upon initial contact, Officer Bernhard identified himself 

as working with the Lehigh County Task Force and stated 

that the purpose for the stop was to make contact with 

motorists as they passed through the Borough of Macungie 

to conduct a sobriety checkpoint.

8

[The trial court] took judicial notice of the fact that 

Health Network Laboratories, located at 2024 Lehigh 

Street, is approved to test blood alcohol pursuant to July 

6, 2013, 43 Pa. Bulletin 3786.

Trial Ct. Op., 8/20/14, 2-4 (record citations omitted).

On September 6, 2013, Appellant was arraigned on charges of driving 

under the influence of alcohol (generally),2 driving under the influence of 

alcohol (highest tier, second offense),3and restrictions on alcoholic 

beverages.4 On June 9, 2014, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion, 

and a suppression hearing was held on July 23, 2014. The trial court issued 

an opinion denying the motion on August 20, 2014, and she pleaded guilty 

to driving under the influence of alcohol5on October 20, 2014. That same 

day, Appellant was sentenced to “a term of imprisonment in the Lehigh 

County prison of not less than thirty (30) days nor more than six (6) 

 

2 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).

3 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b).

4 75 Pa.C.S. § 3809(a).

5 See note 1, supra.
J.A21003/15

- 5 -

months,” which “was ordered to commence on November 20, 2014.”6 Trial 

Ct. Op., 12/16/14, at 1-2. 

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion requesting a new trial on 

November 14, 2014, which was denied on November 19, 2014. She timely 

filed her notice of appeal to this Court on December 16, 2014. Appellant 

was not ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. 

Appellant raises the following issue for review:

Were Appellant’s Constitutional rights under the Fourth 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution and Article One, Section Eight of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution violated when Appellant’s 

Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion to Suppress Evidence was denied 

based on the suppression court’s finding of substantial 

compliance with the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines?

Appellant’s Brief at 1.

Appellant argues the DUI checkpoint was unconstitutional because it 

did not conform with one of the five guidelines set forth in Commonwealth 

v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987), and Commonwealth v. Blouse, 

611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992), which require a “decision as to which vehicles to 

stop at the checkpoint [be] established by administratively pre-fixed, 

objective standards, and [not] left to the unfettered discretion of the officers 

at the scene.” Appellant’s Brief at 4 (citation omitted). She argues there 

were “no . . . written procedure[s] to fall back upon” in the event traffic 

 

6 Appellant filed a petition to stay sentence pending appeal on November 19, 

2014, which the trial court granted on November 24, 2014.
J.A21003/15

- 6 -

were to back up at the checkpoint, leaving the on-scene officer with too 

much discretion. Id. at 5. Thus, she contends the trial court erred in 

denying her motion to suppress. Id. at 8. We need not reach the merits of 

this issue.7

Our review is governed by the following standards:

[An appellate court’s] standard of review in addressing a 

challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited 

to determining whether the suppression court’s factual 

findings are supported by the record and whether the legal 

conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because 

the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, 

we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth 

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 suppression court’s factual findings are 

supported by the record, [the appellate court is] bound by 

[those] findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal 

conclusions are erroneous. Where . . . the appeal of the 

determination of the suppression court turns on allegations 

of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are 

not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to 

determine if the suppression court properly applied the law 

to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts 

below are subject to [ ] plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Garibay, 106 A.3d 136, 138-39 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(alterations in original and citations omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Faust, 471 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 1984), 

“[f]ollowing the entry of his guilty plea [to burglary], appellant did not file a 

petition to withdraw [his] plea.” Id. at 1265. “Instead, he filed a petition 

 

7 We note at oral argument, Appellant seemingly conceded the instant issue 

had been waived by virtue of her guilty plea.
J.A21003/15

- 7 -

for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied.” Id. On appeal to this 

Court, the appellant argued “[t]he lower court erred in failing to suppress” 

evidence. Id. In affirming his judgment of sentence, we opined:

[The defendant] freely chose to plead guilty to burglary 

and criminal conspiracy. This plea, in turn, greatly 

restricted the number of appealable issues. Once a plea 

was entered, his petition to withdraw, and subsequent 

appeal from a denial thereof, were limited to allegations 

challenging the jurisdiction of the court, voluntariness of 

his plea and the propriety of the sentence imposed. Nonjurisdictional defects, such as those raised by [the 

defendant] here, are waived as a result of the plea of 

guilty, unless said defects are the primary motivation for 

the plea. [The defendant] neither alleges nor proves that 

the confession or physical evidence was the primary 

motivation for the plea.

Id. 1266-67 (citations omitted). 

Instantly, Appellant’s guilty plea to driving under the influence of 

alcohol has “restricted the number of appealable issues” to those 

“challenging the jurisdiction of the court, voluntariness of [her] plea and the 

propriety of the sentence imposed.” See id. Because Appellant’s claim does 

not implicate any of these issues, but rather challenges the trial court’s 

denial of her suppression motion, this Court discerns no basis for relief. See 

id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J.A21003/15

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/13/2015