Com. v. Dieter, E. ( 2023 )

J-S11013-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
EDWARD DIETER :
:
Appellant : No. 1762 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 16, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0003601-2021
BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 1, 2023
I agree with the majority that we should affirm, but I get there by a
different route. My analysis is as follows. An officer may stop a vehicle for a
suspected violation of the Vehicle Code, where the detention serves no
“investigatory purpose relevant to the suspected [Motor Vehicle Code]
violation,” if the officer has probable cause. Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10
A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc). The probable cause inquiry does
not entail an examination of the officer’s subjective motivation. So long as the
officer had probable cause, it does not matter if the officer was also interested
in questioning the suspect regarding another investigation. See
Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108, 120 (Pa. 2008) (stating that under
the reasonable suspicion standard, “if police can articulate a reasonable
suspicion of a Vehicle Code violation, a constitutional inquiry into the officer's
motive for stopping the vehicle is unnecessary”); Commonwealth v.
J-S11013-23
Coughlin, 199 A.3d 401, 410-11 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc) (rejecting trial
court’s reliance on officer’s alleged motivation in granting suppression).
We instead employ an objective standard. We ask whether “the facts
and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge and of which the
officer has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to
warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief” that the suspect
committed an offense. Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562, 565 (Pa.
Super. 2013).
Dieter’s argument that the record does not support the finding that the
plate was tinted and was not legible lacks merit. Dieter’s Br. at 8, 12. The
statute at issue, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1332(b)(3), makes it unlawful to display on a
vehicle a registration plate that “is illegible, obscured, covered or otherwise
obstructed in any manner at a reasonable distance[.]” A review of the dash
cam and body cam video in the record reveals that the plate was encased in
a cover that rendered at least part of the registration number not legible. The
officer thus had probable cause to stop the truck for a Vehicle Code violation.
I therefore agree that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress
and that we should affirm.
-2-