Com. v. Smith, T. ( 2015 )

J-S15038-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TERRELL DARNELL SMITH
Appellant No. 1207 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 17, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005207-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2015
I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the suppression court’s
denial of Smith’s motion to suppress.
Though mistaken, it was reasonable for Smith to believe he was being
stopped when he saw emergency lights activated; that, however, did not
necessarily transform the stop into an investigative detention. Smith
remained stopped, even though the targeted car had pulled over behind
him, about 9 car lengths, and the troopers both approached that car. It was
not only reasonable at that point, but obligatory, for one of the troopers to
approach Smith’s car and see why he pulled over, or why he remained
stopped. See Commonwealth v. Conte, 931 A.2d 690, 693 (Pa. Super.
2007) (police officers have duty to society to serve and protect their
communities; this extends beyond enforcement of Crimes Code or Vehicle
J-S15038-15
Code and includes duty to stop and help citizens who are, or appear to be, in
distress). Thus, when Trooper Confer approached Smith, the interaction
was a mere encounter. See Commonwealth v. Kendall, 976 A.2d 503(Pa. Super. 2009) (where defendant was driving slowly and then pulled car
off to side of road after signaling, officer had affirmative duty to assure
defendant was not in distress; interaction between officer and defendant was
mere encounter requiring no level of suspicion and officer had every reason
to pull over after defendant to offer assistance or at very least make sure
there was nothing wrong). When Trooper Confer observed Smith’s
bloodshot eyes and detected a strong odor of alcohol, the mere encounter
was elevated to an investigative detention, and Trooper Confer was justified
in administering field sobriety tests.
I agree, therefore, that the trial court properly denied Smith’s motion
to suppress.
WECHT, J., Joins Concurring Statement
JENKINS, J., Joins Concurring Statement
-2-