Court Opinion

ID: 9728662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:13:27.00439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.769628
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of sentence. I do so for two reasons.
First, in my judgment, Commonwealth v. Martorano, 387 Pa.Super. 151, 563 A.2d 1229 (1989), was incorrectly decided and should be reexamined. The legislature, in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3368, did no more than impose certain conditions upon the use of evidence obtained by mechanical speed timing devices. It did not eliminate the use of other competent evidence in cases involving alleged violations of the speed laws.
Secondly and in any event, I would not extend the holding in Martorano to the circumstances of the instant case. Although I comprehend the logic of the majority’s argument, I find it difficult to believe, as a practical matter, that the legislature intended to render it impossible to convict drivers who speed through school zones, at great risk to innocent school children, without the prior, anticipatory presence of a speed timing device.
When the evidence in this case is considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we are required to do, I am of the opinion that it is sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction of speeding in a school zone. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of sentence.1

. I agree fully with the majority that the citation was sufficient and does not require an arrest of judgment.