J-S36021-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JOSEPH WARREN YOUNG :
:
Appellant : No. 1716 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 1, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-56-SA-0000027-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JOSEPH WARREN YOUNG :
:
Appellant : No. 1722 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 1, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-56-SA-0000051-2019
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED OCTOBER 16, 2020
Appellant, Joseph Warren Young, appeals from the judgments of
sentence entered in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas, following
his bench trial convictions for drivers required to be licensed and driving while
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S36021-20
operating privilege is suspended or revoked.1 We affirm.
The trial court opinion set forth the relevant facts and procedural history
of this case as follows:
[Appellant] appeals from a citation that Officer Russell Miller
of the Conemaugh Township Police issued [to Appellant] in
Stonycreek Township on May 22, 2019, after witnessing
[Appellant] driving his vehicle without a license in
Conemaugh and Upper Yoder Townships. Officer Miller and
[Appellant] have interacted on numerous prior occasions.
In fact, Officer Miller cited [Appellant] for driving without a
license just two months before this May traffic stop, on
March 7, 2019. Although [this] case predominantly
concerns the May traffic stop, both the May and March traffic
stops were relevant to resolving the present matter.
Both traffic stops occurred around the borders of
Conemaugh, Upper Yoder, and Stonycreek Townships.
Conemaugh Township is the southern neighbor of Upper
Yoder Township, and Stonycreek Township lies to the east
of both Conemaugh and Upper Yoder Townships. In
relevant part, Tire Hill Road connects Conemaugh and Upper
Yoder Townships. A shopping plaza sits along the
northernmost portion of Tire Hill Road and straddles the two
localities: the southern portion of the plaza is in
Conemaugh, and its northern portion is in Upper Yoder.
Ferndale Avenue, which is just beyond the northern edge of
the shopping plaza and located in Upper Yoder, runs
perpendicular to Tire Hill Road. Ferndale Avenue runs
through Upper Yoder in a northeastern direction. After
turning right onto Ferndale Avenue from Tire Hill Road, a
driver will eventually enter Stonycreek Township.
On March 7, 2019, [Appellant], who had a suspended
driver’s license, was travelling north on Tire Hill Road in
Conemaugh Township, while Officer Miller was traveling
southbound and observed [Appellant] operating the
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1501(a), 1543(b)(1)(i).
-2-
J-S36021-20
vehicle.[2] Because Officer Miller already knew that
[Appellant] had a suspended driver’s license, he turned his
patrol vehicle around in order to make a traffic stop. Officer
Miller caught up with [Appellant’s] vehicle as it approached
a stop sign in Upper Yoder Township, which was just beyond
Conemaugh’s border and the shopping plaza. [Appellant]
failed to stop his vehicle at the stop sign. Officer Miller then
activated his patrol vehicle’s lights and proceeded to
conduct the traffic stop in Upper Yoder Township. During
this traffic stop, Officer Miller obtained [Appellant’s] certified
driving record and confirmed that [Appellant’s] license was
suspended. Officer Miller issued [Appellant] a citation for
failure to stop for a posted stop sign … and another citation
for operating a vehicle without a valid license ….1
1 On May 2, 2019, [Appellant] proceeded to a
summary hearing before [a magistrate], who found
[Appellant] guilty of both offenses.
* * *
On [Monday,] June 3, 2019, [Appellant] appealed the
magistrate’s decision to [the trial c]ourt, which was
docketed as [SA-27-]2019.
Two months later, on May 22, 2019, at around 3:00 a.m.,
Officer Miller was stopped at a traffic light on the
intersection of Ferndale Avenue and Tire Hill Road in Upper
Yoder Township. From that vantage point, Officer Miller
could observe the southern portion of Tire Hill Road located
in Conemaugh and the entire shopping plaza, including a car
wash that sits in Upper Yoder. While Officer Miller sat at the
traffic light, he observed [Appellant’s] vehicle driving north
on the portion of Tire Hill Road located in Conemaugh.
Officer Miller was fully aware of the vehicle that [Appellant]
drove, [Appellant’s] appearance, and the fact that
[Appellant] had a suspended license. Thus, when Officer
Miller observed [Appellant’s] vehicle traveling down Tire Hill
Road in Conemaugh, he became suspicious that, once more,
____________________________________________
2 Officer Miller receives monthly reports regarding drivers with suspended
licenses, and he was aware of Appellant’s suspension from reviewing these
reports. (N.T. Hearing, 11/1/19, at 13).
-3-
J-S36021-20
[Appellant] was driving without a license and paid close
attention to what occurred next.
[Appellant’s] vehicle briefly continued north on Tire Hill Road
from Conemaugh into Upper Yoder, before pulling into the
shopping plaza and parking at the plaza’s car wash. The
driver of the vehicle exited the car and began vacuuming it.
Because of his abundant familiarity with [Appellant], Officer
Miller immediately recognized the driver of the vehicle as
[Appellant]. At that time, Officer Miller did not immediately
approach [Appellant] because he hoped that [Appellant]
would see him posted at the light and call someone for a
ride, rather than continue driving. Officer Miller’s hopes did
not come to fruition.
After he finished vacuuming his vehicle, [Appellant]
reentered his vehicle, exited the shopping plaza, and turned
north onto Tire Hill Road, placing him at the intersection of
Tire Hill Road and Ferndale Avenue in Upper Yoder.
[Appellant] then turned his vehicle east onto Ferndale
Avenue. Officer Miller immediately activated his patrol
vehicle’s lights and sirens and began pursuing [Appellant] in
order to conduct a traffic stop. Because Stonycreek
Township lies immediately to the east of Upper Yoder,
Officer Miller ultimately performed the traffic stop … in
Stonycreek Township. During the traffic stop, Officer Miller
confirmed [Appellant’s] license suspension through a
certified driving record.
Officer Miller issued [a citation] for operating a vehicle with
a suspended license …. On August 20, 2019, [Appellant]
proceeded to a summary hearing before [a magistrate], who
found [Appellant] guilty under Section 1543(b)(1). [The
magistrate] assessed fines and costs against [Appellant].
Because this was Appellant’s sixth offense under Section
1543(b)(1), she also sentenced him to 90 days of
incarceration in the Somerset County Jail.
On September 18, 2019, [Appellant appealed the
magistrate’s decision to the trial court, which was docketed
as SA-51-2019].
(Trial Court Opinion for SA-51-2019, filed March 3, 2020, at 1-4) (internal
-4-
J-S36021-20
record citations and some footnotes omitted).
Prior to his trial de novo for both cases, Appellant filed identical
suppression motions at both SA-27-2019 and SA-51-2019. Appellant argued
that the March 7, 2019 traffic stop was illegal under the Municipal Police
Jurisdiction Act (“MPJA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8951-8955. (See Suppression
Motion, filed 10/3/19, at ¶9). Appellant further argued that “pursuant to the
exclusionary rule,[3] the information obtained from the … illegal stop, i.e.,
[Appellant’s] driving record, cannot be the basis for the traffic stop made by
Officer Miller on May 22, 2019.” (Id. at ¶10).
The court conducted a suppression hearing on November 1, 2019. After
receiving testimony from Officer Miller, the court permitted additional
argument. At that time, Appellant’s counsel raised another theory regarding
why the May 22, 2019 traffic stop was illegal:
[T]he May incident, okay, clearly occurred in Cambria
County.[4] [The officer] testified that he was at the corner
of Ferndale Avenue and Tire Hill Road, and he saw a vehicle
coming down. He didn’t know it was [Appellant] at all. So,
he didn’t know if there’s a violation [that] occurred.
He didn’t recognize [Appellant] until [Appellant] got out of
____________________________________________
3 “To effectuate the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment, in the
early part of the last century, the United States Supreme Court adopted the
exclusionary rule, which bars the use of evidence obtained through an illegal
search and seizure.” Commonwealth v. Arter, 637 Pa. 541, 547-48, 151
A.3d 149, 153 (2016).
4Upper Yoder and Stonycreek Townships are located within Cambria County.
(See N.T. Hearing, 11/1/19, at 22). Conemaugh Township is in Somerset
County. (Id. at 32-33).
-5-
J-S36021-20
his car in the car wash … right along Tire Hill Road. He sees
him, and then he’s waiting for him to drive. Again, he could
have activated his lights and arrested him there. He didn’t
do that.
He stood by, came out, and he arrested him in Cambria
County again. That whole violation definitely occurred
within Cambria County.
(N.T. Hearing at 37).
Following argument, the court granted Appellant’s suppression motion
in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the March 7, 2019 citation for failure
to stop at a stop sign, finding the offense “actually took place outside of
Conemaugh Township; and, so it would seem to the [c]ourt that there is no
exception under the [MPJA] for that particular offense.” (Id. at 39). The court
denied the suppression motion in all other respects, stating:
[W]e believe that Section 8953(a)(2) [of the MPJA] applies,
the reasoning being that we find that the officer was able to
observe [Appellant] committing various violations under the
Vehicle Code while in the boundaries of Conemaugh
Township.
The officer then pursued [Appellant] as [Appellant] drove
beyond the boundaries of Conemaugh Township, and we
find that that was a fresh pursuit of an offense that was
[committed] inside of the jurisdiction of Conemaugh
Township.
(Id.)
Appellant immediately proceeded to a trial de novo for the remaining
offenses. At SA-27-2019, the court found Appellant guilty of drivers required
to be licensed and sentenced him to pay costs, fees, and a fine. At SA-51-
2019, the court found Appellant guilty of driving with a suspended license and
-6-
J-S36021-20
sentenced him to ninety days’ incarceration, plus the payment of costs, fees,
and a fine.
On November 18, 2019, Appellant timely filed separate notices of appeal
at both docket numbers. On November 21, 2019, the court ordered Appellant
to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
at SA-27-2019 only. Nevertheless, Appellant timely filed separate Rule
1925(b) statements at both docket numbers on December 11, 2019. On
January 2, 2020, this Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte.
Appellant now raises one issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in finding that Officer Miller
was authorized to arrest and charge [Appellant] with driving
with a suspended license outside of his primary jurisdiction
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8953(a)(2), where Officer Miller
did not observe or pursue [Appellant] at any time within his
own primary territorial jurisdiction.
(Appellant’s Brief at 5).
On appeal, Appellant contends there was no exception within the MPJA
to allow Officer Miller, who works for the Conemaugh Township Police
Department, to make the traffic stop in Stonycreek Township on May 22,
2019. Regarding the “hot pursuit” exception set forth in Section 8953(a)(2),
Appellant argues it applies only in cases where the offense is committed within
the officer’s primary jurisdiction. Appellant further argues the record does not
support a finding that he committed any offense in Conemaugh Township on
the night in question. Appellant maintains Officer Miller assumed Appellant
was traveling from Conemaugh Township on Tire Hill Road, but “the only
-7-
J-S36021-20
testimony in evidence offered at [the suppression hearing] was that Appellant
was operating his vehicle in Cambria County at the time Officer Miller first
observed him ….” (Id. at 17-18). Appellant concludes Officer Miller violated
the MPJA and conducted an illegal traffic stop, and this Court must reverse
the conviction for driving with a suspended license at SA-51-2019.5 We
disagree.
In reviewing the court’s suppression ruling, we are guided by the
following principles:
The standard and scope of review for a challenge to the
denial of a suppression motion is whether the factual
findings are supported by the record and whether the legal
conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. When
reviewing the rulings of a suppression court, [the appellate
court] considers only the evidence of the prosecution and so
much of the evidence for the defense as remains
uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a
whole. When the record supports the findings of the
suppression court, [the court is] bound by those facts and
may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom
are in error.
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 116 A.3d 1139, 1142 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122, 125-26 (Pa.Super. 2011)). “It is
within the suppression court’s sole province as factfinder to pass on the
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.”
____________________________________________
5 In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court determined that Appellant waived
this issue by failing to raise it in the suppression motion or at the hearing.
(See Trial Court Opinion at 7-8). Based upon our review of the transcript,
however, counsel’s oral argument at the suppression hearing was adequate
to preserve the issue for appeal. (See N.T. Hearing at 37).
-8-
J-S36021-20
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 179 A.3d 77, 81 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583, 585 (Pa.Super. 2006)).
The MPJA defines the “primary jurisdiction” of municipal police officers
as “[t]he geographical area within the territorial limits of a municipality or any
lawful combination of municipalities which employs a municipal police officer.”
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8951. The MPJA also recognizes certain instances where
municipal police officers may legitimately stop an individual outside of their
primary jurisdiction, including when an officer is in hot pursuit of a suspect:
§ 8953. Statewide municipal police jurisdiction
(a) General rule.—Any duly employed municipal
police officer who is within this Commonwealth, but beyond
the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction, shall have
the power and authority to enforce the laws of this
Commonwealth or otherwise perform the functions of that
office as if enforcing those laws or performing those
functions within the territorial limits of his primary
jurisdiction in the following cases:
* * *
(2) Where the officer is in hot pursuit of any
person for any offense which was committed, or which
he has probable cause to believe was committed,
within his primary jurisdiction and for which offense
the officer continues in fresh pursuit of the person
after the commission of the offense.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8953(a)(2).
Our Supreme Court has elaborated that “‘hot pursuit’ and ‘fresh pursuit’
require some sort of investigation and tracking of the perpetrator and that
that pursuit be immediate, continuous and uninterrupted.” Commonwealth
-9-
J-S36021-20
v. Peters, 600 Pa. 268, 274, 965 A.2d 222, 225 (2009). Further, “the MPJA
is to be construed liberally to give effect to its purposes. One of the intended
purposes of the MPJA is to promote public safety while maintaining police
accountability to local authority; it is not intended to erect impenetrable
jurisdictional walls benefit[ing] only criminals hidden in their shadows.” Id.
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Instantly, Officer Miller unequivocally testified that he observed
Appellant driving in Conemaugh Township, the officer’s primary jurisdiction,
on May 22, 2019:
[THE COURT]: Now, let’s go to the later incident. I
think it was the May 22nd incident.
[OFFICER]: Okay.
[THE COURT]: You first observed him in Conemaugh
Township …?
[OFFICER]: On the road in Conemaugh
Township. He pulled into the car wash.
(N.T. Hearing at 25) (emphasis added). In light of this testimony, the court
concluded that Section 8953(a)(2) authorized Officer Miller’s subsequent
actions. (See id. at 39). Here, the suppression record supports the court’s
finding that Officer Miller properly acted under the MPJA, where the officer was
in hot pursuit of Appellant for an offense committed within the officer’s primary
jurisdiction. See Peters, supra; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8953(a)(2). Because the
record supports the court’s factual findings, we affirm. See Griffin, supra.
Judgments of sentence affirmed.
- 10 -
J-S36021-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/16/2020
- 11 -