Court Opinion

ID: 9915805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 17:18:14.283357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:01.546268
License: Public Domain

J-S45005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  WALTER RECTOR                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 267 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 25, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-55-CR-0000402-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                              FILED JANUARY 08, 2024

       Walter Rector appeals from the judgment of sentence of six months of

probation and a $100 fine imposed upon his conviction for driving under the

influence of a controlled substance (“DUI”) and a related traffic violation. We

affirm.

       We glean the following facts from the certified record. On the morning

of June 12, 2021, Trooper Joseph Civello of the Pennsylvania State Police

initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Appellant because the trooper was

unable to read the last four digits of the license plate from a reasonable

distance. In speaking with Appellant during the stop, Trooper Civello observed

him to have both dilated pupils and bloodshot eyes. Based on his training as

an Advanced Roadside Impairment Driving Enforcement (“ARIDE”) officer, the

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45005-23

trooper believed that these were indicators of impairment. After the trooper

asked Appellant why his eyes were bloodshot, Appellant responded by stating

that he had just woken up.

      Trooper Civello then directed Appellant to step outside of the vehicle so

that the trooper could conduct standard field sobriety tests. Appellant showed

signs of impairment during four of the five administered tests and admitted

that he had smoked marijuana the previous night. Additionally, the trooper

saw that Appellant’s tongue had a green tint, which the trooper testified was

suggestive of recent marijuana ingestion.

      Appellant was arrested and consented to a blood draw within two hours

of the traffic stop.   The blood was lab tested, and a report revealed the

presence therein of both THC and MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy. The

Commonwealth ultimately charged Appellant with DUI, careless driving, and

obscured plates.

      Appellant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained after his

arrest, including the blood test results, asserting inter alia that Trooper Civello

lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before requesting that

Appellant perform the field sobriety tests. The trial court held a suppression

hearing on September 9, 2022.         At the conclusion of the hearing, both

Appellant and the Commonwealth agreed that, if the court determined that

suppression was not warranted, it could proceed to a stipulated nonjury trial

based on the proffered evidence.           The court took the matter under

advisement, and Appellant waived the right to have the court render a prompt

                                       -2-
J-S45005-23

judgment. On December 5, 2022, the court entered separate orders denying

the motion to suppress and finding Appellant guilty of DUI and obscured

plates. Appellant was later sentenced as indicated hereinabove.

      This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant raises a single issue on appeal: “Whether the

trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained

from him after his vehicle was stopped by a Pennsylvania State Police Officer?”

Appellant’s brief at 4.

      As to this issue, our standard of review is well-settled:

      An appellate court’s standard of reviewing 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. Thus, our review of questions of law is de novo. Our
      scope of review is to consider [the evidence offered by the
      Commonwealth and] so much of the evidence for the defense as
      remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the
      suppression record as a whole.

Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 209 A.3d 957, 968-69 (Pa. 2019) (citations

omitted).

      In his brief, Appellant does not contest the legality of the initial stop or

the trial court’s factual findings as to what happened thereafter. Rather, the

dispute centers around the court’s conclusion that Trooper Civello had

reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity at the time he requested that

Appellant engage in the field sobriety tests.

                                      -3-
J-S45005-23

      This Court has held that a law enforcement officer’s demand that a

driver perform standard field sobriety tests constitutes an investigative

detention, and therefore must be support by reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Cauley, 10 A.3d 321, 327 (Pa.Super.

2010) (discussing that an investigative detention arises upon an officer’s

command to undergo such testing). To meet this standard, “the officer must

point to specific and articulable facts which, together with the rational

inferences therefrom, reasonably warrant the intrusion. In addition, we must

look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the officer had

reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.” Id. at 326.

      In denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, the trial court stated the

following regarding this issue:

      After making contact with [Appellant], the trooper observed
      indicators of impairment due to a controlled substance, specifically
      [Appellant]’s bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils. This established
      reasonable suspicion for the trooper to continue his investigation
      and requested [Appellant] to exit his vehicle and perform field
      sobriety tests. The court finds the trooper’s testimony credible,
      that he observed sufficient indicators of impairment[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/22, at unnumbered 3 (cleaned up).

      Appellant argues that the perception of bloodshot eyes and dilated

pupils was insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion of criminality. See

Appellant’s brief at 9-11.   He notes that the trooper did not attest to any

additional indicia of Appellant’s impairment, such as erratic driving or an odor

of marijuana.    Id. at 10.       Appellant further cites a decision from the

                                       -4-
J-S45005-23

Commonwealth Court for the proposition that “the showing of glassy eyes

alone is insufficient to support the conclusion that an officer had reasonable

grounds to believe that a licensee was intoxicated at a given point in time.”

Id. at 11 (discussing Stancavage v. Com., Dept. of Tranp., 986 A.2d 895,

899 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009)). As such, he contends that his arrest was unlawful,

since it relied upon field sobriety testing administered without supporting

reasonable suspicion. See Appellant’s brief at 11.

      Upon review, we conclude that the court’s factual findings are supported

by the record and its legal conclusions are correct. Based on the totality of

the circumstances, Trooper Civello had reasonable suspicion that Appellant

was driving impaired at the time he administered the standard field sobriety

tests. Appellant’s pupils were dilated despite the daylight, and his eyes were

bloodshot with the only explanation from Appellant being that he had just

woken up. Based on his ARIDE training, the trooper credibly testified that

both conditions were demonstrative of marijuana use. Accordingly, it is clear

that Trooper Civello was able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that

warranted the intrusion of an investigative detention. Cauley, supra at 326.

      Further,     we    are    unpersuaded       by   Appellant’s   reliance     on   the

Commonwealth Court’s decision in Stancavage. Putting aside the fact that

the holding does not bind this Court, see Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick,

159   A.3d   562,       571    n.7   (Pa.Super.    2017),   the   case   is     materially

distinguishable.    There, the Commonwealth Court considered whether an

officer had “reasonable grounds” to make an arrest for DUI, which is distinct

                                          -5-
J-S45005-23

from our review as to whether there was reasonable suspicion sufficient to

support an investigative detention. Moreover, the officer in that case noted

only a single, more subjective sign of impairment before administering field

sobriety tests, the driver’s glassy eyes. As already discussed, here there was

testimony concerning not only Appellant’s dilated pupils and bloodshot eyes,

but also Trooper Civello’s training and experience, which connected these

specific observations to marijuana usage.

      For all the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in denying

Appellant’s suppression motion, and we therefore have no cause to disturb his

conviction.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/08/2024

                                    -6-