J-A26006-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID FISHER GLICK,
Appellant No. 227 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 22, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003218-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY, and JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2014
David Fisher Glick appeals from the judgment of sentence of five to
twenty-three months imprisonment followed by three years probation that
was imposed after he was found guilty at a stipulated bench trial of driving
under the influence of alcohol highest rate. The present DUI was
refusal to suppress evidence seized as a result of his vehicular stop and
arrest, and we affirm.
Initially, we delineate our standard of review of challenges to a
Our review is limited to determining whether the record
supports the findings of fact of the suppression court and
whether the legal conclusions drawn from those findings are
correct. We are bound by the factual findings of the suppression
court, which are supported by the record, but we are not bound
J-A26006-14
by the suppression court's legal rulings, which we review de
novo.
Commonwealth v. James, 69 A.3d 180, 186 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
Herein, the following facts, which are supported by the record, were
claims.
On April 14, 2013, at approximately 10:20 p.m., [East
Lampeter Township] Officer [Jonathan] Werner was on duty as a
patrol officer on Route 30. (N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/14/13,
p. 4-5). Officer Werner was in the parking lot of a Wawa when
he heard an engine revving very loudly in the parking lot directly
across the street. (Id. at p. 5-6). The roadway in between
Wawa and the other parking lot is a five-lane highway with a
center turn lane, two eastbound lanes, and two westbound
lanes. (Id. at p. 6). Traffic was light and nothing obscured the
officer's vision, so he was able to identify that the noise was
coming from a red pickup truck that was leaving the parking lot.
(Id. at 5-7). Officer Werner proceeded to his cruiser and began
to follow the vehicle. (Id. at 7).
Officer Werner had to drive at least 60 miles an hour to
keep up with Defendant; the posted speed limit is 40 miles per
hour. (N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/14/13, p. 8). Defendant
proceeded eastbound on Route 30 in East Lampeter Township,
abruptly changing lanes right in front of a tractor trailer. (N.T.
Suppression Hearing, 11/14/13, p. 8-9). Defendant went from
the left lane to the right lane in such a manner that his vehicle
was shaking like it was out of control and the tractor trailer was
forced to slow and brake. (Id. at 9-10). Officer Werner initiated
a stop of Defendant's vehicle. (Id. at 9). When Defendant pulled
over, his vehicle jumped the curb at the corner of the
intersection. (Id. at 11).
Upon making contact with Defendant, Officer Werner
observed that Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes, spoke with
slurred speech, and that there was a very strong odor of
alcoholic beverages. (Id. at 14). There were also unopened beer
cans in the back seat. (Id. at 13, 37-38). Based on his
observations, Officer Werner directed Defendant to do standard
-2-
J-A26006-14
field sobriety tests. (Id. at 16). Defendant performed the
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk and Turn test, and the
One-Legged Stand. (Id. at 16). Based on the officer's
observations of Defendant prior to initiating the stop and during
the field tests, Officer Werner determined Defendant was
incapable of safely driving and took him into custody. (Id. at 27-
28). The analysis of Defendant's blood indicated a blood alcohol
content of .229%. (Id. at 67-68).
Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/14, at 1-2. Appellant raises these issues on appeal:
1. Whether the motor vehicle stop of the petitioner's vehicle was
constitutional. More specifically whether the motor vehicle stop
was supported by probable cause.
2. Whether the officer's decision to arrest petitioner was
supported by probable cause.
Where, as here, a vehicle is stopped based upon an observed traffic
offense that does not require further investigation, the Commonwealth must
establish that the police officer had probable cause to believe that the traffic
offense was committed. Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa.Super.
2013). In this case, the officer articulated that he observed Appellant
violate 75 Pa.C.S. §
vehicle shall . . . not be moved from the lane until the driver has first
probable cause to believe
that a violation of this section occurred. He reported that Appellant abruptly
changed lanes directly in front of a tractor-trailer, causing that vehicle to
brake. In the process Appellant nearly lost control of his own vehicle.
-3-
J-A26006-14
sustain a traffic stop. Enick, supra. We also observe that Appellant was
not stopped on suspicion of being DUI; rather, Officer Werner articulated
that the abrupt lane change in front of a tractor-trailer violated § 3309(1).
ular stop
was valid.
Appellant next avers that Officer Werner lacked probable cause to
has knowledge of sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent
person to believe that the driver has been driving under the influence of
Commonwealth v. Angel, 946 A.2d
115, 118 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hilliar, 943 A.2d
984 (Pa.Super. 2008)). Probable cause is determined by examining all of
Angel, supra;
Hilliar, supra.
In this case, Officer Werner had an abundance of facts supporting that
Appellant was DUI. Appellant was traveling sixty miles per hour in a forty
mile-per-hour zone, and he changed lanes in front of a tractor-trailer. Then,
when Appellant stopped his vehicle, he jumped the curb and left his truck
partially within the lane of travel. When Officer Werner came into contact
eyes were bloodshot and watery, and he displayed slurred speech and
unsteady movements. Appellant then failed three field sobriety tests, which
-4-
J-A26006-14
the officer was trained to administer. Finally, there was alcohol in
cause to arrest Appellant for DUI. Angel, supra; Hilliar, supra; see also
Commonwealth v. Cauley, 10 A.3d 321 (Pa.Super. 2010).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/6/2014
-5-
Com. v. Glick, D.
Combined Opinion