Com. v. Bowman-Dix, R. ( 2016 )

J. S27003/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Appellee : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
RICHARD ERIC BOWMAN-DIX, :
:
Appellant : No. 1070 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division No(s): CP-67-CR-0004378-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2016
I join the Majority Memorandum. I write separately to clarify that, due
to Appellant’s violation of Section 6308(a) of the Vehicle Code, probable
cause existed to arrest Appellant before the officers began to forcibly
remove him from the car.
As the Majority notes, a sobriety checkpoint is part of a “systematic
program” permissible under our Constitution and case law. See
Commonwealth v. Worthy, 957 A.2d 720, 724 (Pa. 2008). Our Vehicle
Code provides that a police officer who is “engaged in a systematic program
of checking vehicles or has reasonable suspicion that a violation is occurring
or has occurred” has the authority to stop a vehicle for purposes of, inter
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J.S27003/16
alia, “checking the vehicle’s registration, proof of financial responsibility, …
the driver’s license, or to secure such other information as the officer may
reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.”
75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b). The Code also provides that a vehicle operator
“reasonably believed to have violated any provision of the Title shall, upon
request … provide identification.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a). Section 6304 allows
for the “warrantless arrest of any person who violates any provision of this
Title in the presence of the officer.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 6304(a).
In the instant case, as Appellant concedes, the police officer had the
authority to stop Appellant at the sobriety checkpoint and request
identification pursuant to Section 6803(b). When Appellant stopped at the
checkpoint and refused to roll down his heavily-tinted window more than two
inches, the police officer had reasonable suspicion that Appellant was driving
under the influence such that the officer’s further investigation by opening
the car door was justified. See generally Commonwealth v. Cook, 735
A.2d 673, 677 (Pa. 1999). When the officer requested Appellant’s
identification, Appellant was obligated to provide it. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a).
When Appellant refused to comply with the officer’s request, he violated
Section 6308(a). Because Appellant violated a “provision of this Title in the
presence of the police officer making the arrest,” the police officer then had
the authority to arrest Appellant without a warrant. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6304(a).
-2-
J.S27003/16
Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to
suppress, and I concur in the affirmance of his judgment of sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Biagini, 655 A.2d 492 (Pa. 1995) (reaffirming the
proposition that the underlying arrest must be “lawful” in order for a charge
of resisting arrest to be sustained).
P.J.E. Stevens joins this concurring statement.
-3-