Pennsylvania Superior Court Cases - Superior Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Superior Court - unoffical reports

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

J. A18018/01
2001 PA Super 216
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Appellee
:
PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v.
:
:
:
SHAWN LOCKRIDGE,
:
Appellant
:
No. 1942 MDA 2000
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the
Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County,
Criminal Division, No. 119 of 2000
BEFORE: CAVANAUGH, STEVENS and TAMILIA, JJ.
OPINION BY TAMILIA, J.:
Filed: July 25, 2001
¶ 1
Shawn Lockridge appeals from the October 11, 2000, ninety (90) day
judgment of sentence imposed after he was found guilty, following a de novo
hearing, of the summary offense of driving while his license was suspended.1
The facts, which provide the basis of this appeal, follow.
¶ 2
On May 10, 2000, Mindy Davis Musser, the Juniata County probation
officer assigned to appellant following an unrelated conviction, observed
appellant operating a motor vehicle, in violation of the terms of his probation
(N.T., 9/8/00, at 5). Musser reported this violation to Chief Deputy Shane
Corwell of the Juniata County Sheriff's Department, and Deputy Corwell
issued a traffic citation charging appellant with driving while his license was
suspended, DUI-related. Judgment of sentence was initially entered on July
11, 2000, an appeal was taken, and following a September 8, 2000,

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b).

J. A18018/01
summary appeal hearing, the court granted counsel ten (10) days within
which to submit briefs. On October 11, 2000, the court entered judgment of
sentence, re-imposing the aforementioned 90-day term of incarceration and
assessing a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine. This appeal followed.
¶ 3
Appellant argues Deputy Corwell was unauthorized to issue the Motor
Vehicle Code citation because the deputy did not observe him driving his
vehicle, and the traffic violation in question was not a "breach of the peace,"
as contemplated by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa.
89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994). Appellant interprets Leet as follows : for a deputy
sheriff to make a valid arrest in connection with the Motor Vehicle Code, the
"deputy sheriff must (1) complete the same type of training that is required
of police officers throughout the Commonwealth, (2) make an arrest under
the Motor Vehicle Code only for violations committed in his presence, and
(3) those violations must be breaches of the peace." (Appellant's brief at 8.)
Appellant concedes Deputy Corwell was a trained officer, but argues the
latter two prongs of the tri-part test were not satisfied. We find appellant's
arguments unconvincing and his interpretation of the Leet decision faulty.
¶ 4
In Leet, a Commonwealth appeal from this Court's Order affirming the
trial court's decision to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an alleged
illegal arrest, our Supreme Court concluded the common law powers of a
sheriff included the power to enforce the Motor Vehicle Code provided that
sheriff (or deputy) had received the same training as other Commonwealth
- 2 -

J. A18018/01
law enforcement officers. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated this
Court's decision and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing to
determine whether the arresting officer had been formally trained. Id. at
97, 641 A.2d at 303.
¶ 5
Contrary to appellant's assertion, the Leet Court did not address the
legal issue of whether the deputy sheriff who issues a ticket must personally
observe the violation for which he issues a citation. Based on the facts
before it, the Court merely made the statement that a trained deputy sheriff
who observes a Motor Vehicle Code violation has the authority to issue a
citation.2 The source for Deputy Corwell's authority to issue the citation in
question without having observed appellant driving a motor vehicle may be
found in Pa.R.Crim.P. 405, Issuance of citation, and the comments
thereto.3
¶ 6
Rule 405 states that when a criminal proceeding in a summary case is
instituted by issuing a citation to the defendant, the officer must exhibit a
show of authority. For our purposes, the comment to this rule is dispositive.
"A law enforcement officer may issue a citation based upon information that
the defendant has committed a summary violation, which information may
be received from a personal observation of the commission of the offense; a

2 In fact, the issuing officer in Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641
A.2d 299 (1994), did observe the driver violate the Vehicle Code.
3 Effective April 1, 2001, Pa.R.Crim.P. 55, Issuance of citation, was
renumbered Pa.R.Crim.P. 405.
- 3 -

J. A18018/01
witness; another police officer; investigation; or speed-timing equipment,
including radar." Id. Here, appellant's probation officer, a reliable source,
observed appellant driving a motor vehicle in violation of the terms of his
probation and reported said violation to Deputy Corwell. On this basis, we
agree with the trial court Deputy Corwell was authorized to issue the citation
despite not having personally observed the violation.
¶ 7
We turn now to appellant's argument Deputy Corwell was
unauthorized to issue the citation in question because the traffic violation of
driving while his license was suspended did not amount to a "breach of the
peace," as appellant contends is required by Leet. Appellant's interpretation
of Leet illogically limits the authority of a trained deputy to issuing citations
for only those violations of the Vehicle Code that involve behavior or action
similar to those actions prohibited under the disorderly conduct provision of
the Crimes Code.4 Were we to interpret Leet as narrowly as appellant
suggests, a deputy would be prohibited from enforcing section 1543(b) of
the Vehicle Code, even if violated in his presence, because the operation of a
motor vehicle while under suspension does not necessarily involve, "on any
part of [the] driver, any intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or
alarm, or recklessly create risks thereof. (Appellant's brief at 9; see also 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 5503.) Such an interpretation of Leet defies logic, and we find
appellant's "breach of the peace" argument devoid of merit.

4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503.
- 4 -

J. A18018/01
¶ 8
We agree with the trial court's reasoning, "because a citation was
issued by a law enforcement officer, Deputy Corwell, based on information
that [appellant] committed a summary violation received from a very
credible witness, the citation was issued in full compliance with the letter
and spirit of the Pennsylvania law." (Trial Court Opinion, Rehkamp, J.,
10/11/00, at 2.) Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
¶ 9
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 5 -