Court Opinion

ID: 9412811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 17:09:22.596738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:26.685473
License: Public Domain

J-S11013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 EDWARD DIETER                             :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :    No. 1762 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 16, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-09-CR-0003601-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 1, 2023

      I agree with the majority that we should affirm, but I get there by a

different route. My analysis is as follows. An officer may stop a vehicle for a

suspected violation of the Vehicle Code, where the detention serves no

“investigatory purpose relevant to the suspected [Motor Vehicle Code]

violation,” if the officer has probable cause. Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10

A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc). The probable cause inquiry does

not entail an examination of the officer’s subjective motivation. So long as the

officer had probable cause, it does not matter if the officer was also interested

in   questioning   the   suspect    regarding    another    investigation.   See

Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108, 120 (Pa. 2008) (stating that under

the reasonable suspicion standard, “if police can articulate a reasonable

suspicion of a Vehicle Code violation, a constitutional inquiry into the officer's

motive for stopping the vehicle is unnecessary”); Commonwealth v.
J-S11013-23

Coughlin, 199 A.3d 401, 410-11 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc) (rejecting trial

court’s reliance on officer’s alleged motivation in granting suppression).

      We instead employ an objective standard. We ask whether “the facts

and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge and of which the

officer has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to

warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief” that the suspect

committed an offense. Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562, 565 (Pa.

Super. 2013).

      Dieter’s argument that the record does not support the finding that the

plate was tinted and was not legible lacks merit. Dieter’s Br. at 8, 12. The

statute at issue, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1332(b)(3), makes it unlawful to display on a

vehicle a registration plate that “is illegible, obscured, covered or otherwise

obstructed in any manner at a reasonable distance[.]” A review of the dash

cam and body cam video in the record reveals that the plate was encased in

a cover that rendered at least part of the registration number not legible. The

officer thus had probable cause to stop the truck for a Vehicle Code violation.

I therefore agree that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress

and that we should affirm.

                                     -2-