IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. COMMONWEALTH OF PA : : No. CR : DARRELL DAVIS, : OPINION AND ORDER

Similar documents
COMMONWEALTH OF PA : No. CR : vs. : : Petition for Habeas Corpus SHAWN RHINEHART, : RE: Counts 6 and 7 Defendant OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

SHAWN M. RHINEHART, : Petitioner : vs. : No s and : COMMONWEALTH OF :

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

Appeal from the Order of September 4, 2001, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CC

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : MICHAEL DeSCISCIO, : Motion to Establish Number of Defendant : Prior Offenses OPINION AND ORDER

Commonwealth v. Glick -- No Knisely, J. March 5, 2014 Criminal Evidence Suppression DUI Non-investigable offenses.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

: No. CR : OPINION AND ORDER. driving under the influence (DUI) and summary offenses. Defendant s formal court

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OPINION AND ORDER. transfer of firearms and persons not to possess.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

New Hampshire Supreme Court October 17, 2013 Oral Argument Case Summary

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS. DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : : Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA : Without Holding An Evidentiary Hearing OPINION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : CARLOS R. CASTRO, JR., : Defendant : Defendant s (second) Motion to Suppress OPINION AND ORDER

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

involving separate victims in six other cases. 1 The court denied the motions, and Barto

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN Record No June 9, 2005

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2017 VT 40. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Essex Unit, Criminal Division. Renee P. Giguere February Term, 2017

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. : PCRA without holding a hearing OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Joseph R. Burkard and Matthew A. Miller for Appellee

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : :

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : Plaintiff, : 608 MDA 2014 vs. : : DOCKET NO. CR JASON EDWARD BEAMER, :

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : Defendant was taken into custody on July 7, she was released on unsecured intensive supervised bail.

No. 46,976-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OPINION AND ORDER. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and one traffic summary.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY APPEARANCES: C. Michael Moore, Jackson, Ohio, for appellant.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA O P I N I O N. The Defendant is charged in a criminal Information with Possession of

males allegedly involved in narcotics activities on the timeliness of Defendant s motion.

MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT - TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : ROCCO BENEFIELD, : Defendant : Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 600 OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : TAMMY LOU TANNER, : : Appellant : No.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,037 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF DODGE CITY, Appellee, SHAUN BARRETT, Appellant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : OPINION AND ORDER. fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, a felony of the third degree.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. : vs. : : : : Omnibus Pretrial Motion/ OPINION AND ORDER

: No. CR : OPINION AND ORDER

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. : Without an Evidentiary Hearing OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed May 11, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gregory D.

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016

Court of Appeals of Ohio

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

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

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Petitioner, WRIT NO.: 12-43

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

2017 PA Super 176 OPINION BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 06, About an hour before noon on a Saturday morning, Donna Peltier, the

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012

CUMBERLAND LAW JOURNAL

. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. June 16, As you know, this matter was tried to the Court on June 10, 2004.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Before this Court is a Motion to Suppress filed by Defendant, Danielle Theresa Bauer. Defendant seeks to suppress the blood drawn

2018 PA Super 280 : : : : : : : : :

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

v. CASE NO.: 2006-CA-2677-O WRIT NO.: 06-99

2018 VT 100. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division. Walker P. Edelman June Term, 2018

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE XXXXXXXXXXXX JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR XXXXXXXXX COUNTY, FLORIDA. DIVISION: The Hon. XXXXX XXXXXX

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : JOSEPH JENNINGS, : Defendant : Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 600 OPINION

0 s gw.der ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. : vs. : : Motion to Dismiss JOHN BUDD, : Defendant :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT

2018 PA Super 72 : : : : : : : : :

Matthew McBee vs. Safety

Title 5 Traffic Code Chapter 2 Criminal Traffic Code

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff : CASE NO CR 00224

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/22/2010 :

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. Following a jury trial that took place on June 23, 2017, the defendant was

No. 112,243 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TYLER FISCHER, Appellant, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

COMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : AMY MORGRET, : Defendant : Omnibus Pretrial Motion OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

Transcription:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PA : vs. : No. CR-272-018 : DARRELL DAVIS, : Defendant : Motion to Suppress OPINION AND ORDER The defendant is charged by Information filed on March 2, 2018 with one count of aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence, a felony two offense. The Commonwealth alleges that the defendant negligently caused serious bodily injury to Sharon Thomas as a result of committing a driving under the influence offense on May 5, 2017. Before the court is the defendant s Motion to Suppress filed on April 2, 2018. The hearing on the defendant s motion was held before the court on June 11, 2018. Prior to taking testimony, the parties met and agreed to a resolution of a portion of the issues raised in the Motion to Suppress. First, the Commonwealth agreed that the questioning of the defendant after he was taken into custody was without first providing to the defendant his Miranda warnings. Accordingly, the Commonwealth concedes that any statements the defendant made in response to custodial interrogation following his arrest are not admissible. Second, the defendant concedes that his blood test was either taken within two hours after he had driven his vehicle or that there were viable exceptions to the two-hour rule. Accordingly, the defendant withdrew his Motion to Suppress the blood test as a result of allegedly violating the two-hour rule. Third, with respect to the defendant s Motion to Suppress the blood test as a result of the arresting officer not obtaining a warrant, while not withdrawing said motion and in

order to preserve the issue for appeal purposes if necessary, the defendant concedes that under existing law, a warrant was not necessary. The defendant also concedes that the proper implied consent form was read and his consent was not coerced. Law enforcement officers are not obligated to obtain a warrant prior to a blood test if the defendant knowingly consents to the blood test. Commonwealth v. Miller, 2018 PA Super 111, 2018 WL 2057002 (May 3, 2018); Commonwealth v. Robertson, 2018 PA Super 110, 2018 WL 2057000 (May 3, 2018); Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323, 327-328 (Pa. Super. 2016); see also this court s prior Opinions in Commonwealth v. Garms, CR-762-2017 (September 25, 2017); Commonwealth v. Diehl, CR-642-2017 (September 27, 2017); Commonwealth v. DeSciscio, CR-1943-2016 (September 1, 2017); Commonwealth v. Littlejohn, CR-1199-2017 (September 7, 2017). For the reasons set forth in all of the aforementioned Opinions and based upon the appellate authority cited, the defendant s arguments related to the necessity of the search warrant and coercion fail. The remaining issue to be addressed through the testimony related to the defendant s Motion to Suppress the blood test results based upon the defendant s argument that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant and request a blood test. The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Trooper Kurtis Killian of the Pennsylvania State Police. On May 5, 2017, Trooper Killian was on duty and partnered with Trooper Doug Hoffman. He was working the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. At approximately 5:45 a.m., prior to beginning his shift, he was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident on State Route 87 near the town of Barbours, approximately 12 miles north of Montoursville. He and Trooper Hoffman arrived at the accident scene at approximately 6:20 a.m. 2

He observed two vehicles that had been involved in an accident. The one vehicle was a silver Ford Taurus. At the time the trooper arrived, the driver was being extricated from the vehicle by emergency personnel. The other vehicle, a beige Toyota Camry, was on the west side of the roadway against a tree. The evidence on scene was consistent with the accident occurring in the southbound lane. There were gouges in the road and debris from the vehicles located in the southbound lane. Furthermore, the damage to both vehicles was located at the front driver s side. It appeared to Trooper Killian that the Camry, which was traveling northbound, drifted into the southbound lane causing a head-on collision with the Taurus vehicle. There did not appear to be any reason why the accident occurred other than as indicated by Trooper Killian. When Trooper Killian approached the Camry, he noted that there were no occupants in it. He located a wallet and inside the wallet was the defendant s driver s license. Volunteer firefighters searched the surrounding area for the defendant without success. Trooper Killian attempted to locate the defendant as well, but again without success. Shortly thereafter, Trooper Killian was informed by a volunteer fire company member that a male was walking north on State Route 87 approximately one mile from the accident scene. When the male apparently spotted the fire company vehicle, he jumped the guardrail and ran away toward the adjoining creek. When Trooper Killian arrived near the area where the defendant was seen, he saw the defendant swimming across the creek in a westerly direction. The creek was high and the water was cold. 3

Instead of attempting to swim after the defendant, with the assistance of emergency personnel, he traveled to the other side of the creek and then traveled down a work road to the pheasant farm which adjoined the creek on the western side. When he arrived at where the defendant was swimming, the defendant was leaning up against a gate to the pheasant farm. The defendant was obviously very cold. He was shaking and almost in shock. Trooper Killian smelled a moderate odor of alcoholic beverages on the defendant. The defendant was also very talkative and argumentative. Concerned over the defendant s medical condition, the defendant was taken into custody and transported to the nearest hospital where he was evaluated and treated. After being stabilized, the trooper read to the defendant the implied consent form and defendant submitted to a blood test. Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the police officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299, 306 (Pa. Super. 2011). The court must view the totality of the circumstances as seen through the eyes of a trained officer, and not as an ordinary citizen would view them. Commonwealth v. Nobalez, 805 A.2d 598, 600 (Pa. Super. 2002). It is only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity that is the standard of probable cause. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 604 Pa. 198, 985 A.2d 928, 931 (2009). Probable cause exists when criminality is one reasonable inference; and need not be the only inference. Commonwealth v. Burnside, 625 A.2d 678, 681 (Pa. Super. 1993). 4

The court finds that Trooper Killian had probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. First, an accident occurred which indicated that the defendant drove his vehicle in the opposite lane of traffic causing a head-on collision. There did not appear to be any reason explaining why the accident occurred. Secondly, following the accident, the defendant left the scene. He walked approximately one mile away, and when he spotted fire company officials traveling on the roadway, he jumped a guardrail and ran away. His flight took him to extreme measures, including attempting to get away by swimming across a creek which had not only a high water level but was also very cold water. Once he was confronted by troopers, he became very talkative and argumentative. As well, they smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. All of these factors when taken together support probable cause to arrest the defendant. The police need not, as the defendant claims, exclude all other possible reasons, do additional investigation or even conduct field sobriety tests. In viewing the totality of the circumstances as seen through the eyes of a trained officer, there was a probability that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time the accident occurred. There did not appear to be any reason for the accident occurring. The defendant drove his vehicle in the entire opposite lane causing a head-on collision. The defendant exhibited consciousness of guilt by first leaving the accident scene and by next trying to escape being seen by law enforcement or emergency personnel by hopping a guardrail, traveling through brush and then swimming across a cold creek to the extent of requiring subsequent medical care. The defendant was argumentative and talkative to the police officers and had a moderate odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. 5

Probable cause does not require certainty. Probable cause does not require the police exclude all other possibilities. Probable cause only requires facts which are sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution in believing that the suspect probably had committed a crime. While there is certainly no bright line rule, other cases support this court s conclusion that the arrest in this case was supported by probable cause. See Commonwealth v. Guerry, 469 Pa. 20, 364 A.2d 700, 702 (Pa. 1976) (vehicle accident, odor of alcohol, glassy and bloodshot eyes sufficient); Commonwealth v. Haynos, 525 A.2d 394, 399 (Pa. Super. 1987) (vehicle accident and odor of alcohol sufficient probable cause); Commonwealth v. Reymeyer, 502 A.2d 1332, 1335 (Pa. Super. 1985) (drove through red light, odor of alcohol, and difficulty locating driver s license sufficient). ORDER AND NOW, this day of June 2018, following a hearing and argument, the court DENIES the defendant s motion to suppress based on the fact that a warrant was not obtained, DENIES the defendant s motion to suppress based on the allegation that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant, and GRANTS the defendant s Motion to Suppress any statements he made while in custody and being interrogated without first being read his Miranda warnings. The court notes that the defendant has withdrawn his motion to suppress based on the alleged violation of the two-hour rule. BY THE COURT, Marc F. Lovecchio, Judge 6

cc: Scott Werner, Esquire ADA Brian Manchester, Esquire 124 W. Bishop St. Bellefonte, PA 16823-1927 Gary Weber, Esquire (Lycoming Reporter) Work File 7