Brief of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants (AG Brief) at 9. The Attorney General cites Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994), as authority for the proposition that Sheriffs are authorized to make arrests without warrants for felonies and that, accordingly, unless their power has been specifically abrogated, they may conduct wiretaps. AG Brief at 9.

See generally Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 346, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914) (implementing the exclusionary rule precluding the federal courts from admitting evidence procured in violation of an accused's Fourth Amendment rights); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (holding that, per the Fourteenth Amendment, “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court”); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 546 Pa. 65, 71, 683 A.2d 253, 256 (1996) (explaining that the exclusionary rule also operates to enforce rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution).The Commonwealth countered that sheriffs' authority to enforce the Vehicle Code was established in Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994) (holding that duly-trained sheriffs and their deputies have authority to make warrantless arrests for motor vehicle violations committed in their presence). In particular, the Commonwealth stressed Leet's reliance on the historical, common-law powers of sheriffs, as follows:

Justice ZAPPALA We granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine whether a county deputy sheriff, who has completed the deputy sheriff's basic training course, the driving while under the influence modules given to municipal police officers under Act 120, and training in field sobriety test administration, qualifies as a "police officer" for purposes of enforcing the Vehicle Code under the rationale of this Court's holding in Commonwealth v. Leet, 641 A.2d 299 (1994). The Commonwealth Court held that the foregoing training failed to meet the requirements ofLeet.

Based on information received from a witness, a deputy sheriff filed a citation charging Appellant Shawn Lockridge with a summary violation of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 101 et seq. We granted review to consider Appellant's contention that pursuant to our decision in Commonwealth v. Leet, 641 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1994), the charge should have been dismissed because the deputy sheriff did not observe the violation and the violation did not amount to a breach of the peace. We conclude that Leet is inapt; that the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure are controlling; and that under the Rules, the deputy sheriff was authorized to file the citation charging Appellant with the violation.

This Court has addressed the validity of arrests by individuals other than police officers and the resulting consequences in three prior decisions. See Commonwealth v. Corley, 507 Pa. 540, 491 A.2d 829 (1985); Commonwealth v. Galloway, 525 Pa. 12, 574 A.2d 1045 (1990); Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994). A proper disposition of the instant matter necessitates a discussion of these three cases.

See Commonwealth v. Copenhaver , No. CP-01-CR-0001070-2015 (C.P. Adams), Brief for Defendant at 3. See generally Commonwealth v. Leet , 537 Pa. 89, 96, 641 A.2d 299, 303 (1994) (concluding that appropriately trained sheriffs and their deputies retain authority at common law to enforce the motor vehicle code whenever an offense involving a breach of the peace occurs in their presence). Both parties acknowledged that the deputy was aware that the truck's tailgate was down at the time of the stop.

See generally Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 346 (1914) (implementing the exclusionary rule precluding the federal courts from admitting evidence procured in violation of an accused's Fourth Amendment rights); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1691 (1961) (holding that, per the Fourteenth Amendment, "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court"); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 546 Pa. 65, 71, 683 A.2d 253, 256 (1996) (explaining that the exclusionary rule also operates to enforce rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution). The Commonwealth countered that sheriffs' authority to enforce the Vehicle Code was established in Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994) (holding that duly-trained sheriffs and their deputies have authority to make warrantless arrests for motor vehicle violations committed in their presence). In particular, the Commonwealth stressed Leet's reliance on the historical, common-law powers of sheriffs, as follows:

Although no case deals with this precise situation, our supreme court has held that a deputy sheriff had the authority to stop a vehicle and arrest the driver for a Motor Vehicle Code violation which was a breach of the peace committed in the presence of the deputy sheriff. Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994). There are several important distinctions between constables and deputy constables and sheriffs and deputy sheriffs which dilutes the precedential value of Leet.

Thus, according to our Supreme Court, "a constable is a peace officer."Id. Unfortunately, while Act 147 assists our determination, our case law is silent as to whether a "peace officer" has the power to make a warrantless arrest under the facts of the case. Our Supreme Court's recent decision in Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994), however, is sufficiently analogous to provide a starting point for our analysis. The Supreme Court's statement that "a constable is a peace officer" was merely express recognition of a well-settled legal principle.

In Venneri v. County of Allegheny, 316 A.2d 120 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1974) and Allegheny County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 504 A.2d 437 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1986), this Court declined to hold that deputy sheriffs should be covered by Act 111. In the present case, the Association argues that the Supreme Court in two Vehicle Code cases, Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994) and Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Kline, 559 Pa. 646, 741 A.2d 1281 (1999), overruled Venneri and Allegheny County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n. In response, the County argues that Venneri and Allegheny County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n are still binding and that neither Kline nor Leet indicate that there is any new legislative authority for deputy sheriffs to act as police officers.