Court Opinion

ID: 9728917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:19:04.719244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:51.738631
License: Public Domain

ROWLEY, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the record in this case discloses that, (1) the selection of the location of the sobriety checkpoint was made in substantial compliance with the guidelines set forth in Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277, 535 A.2d 1035 (1987), (2) the location of the checkpoint was not unreasonable, (3) none of the concerns expressed by Mr. Justice Papadakos in Commonwealth v. Blouse, 531 Pa. 167, 611 A.2d 1177 (1992) are present, and (4) there is no evidence that remotely suggests that any intrusiveness to the traveling public at the location selected was anything other than minimal. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment of sentence.