Opinion
J-S61042-15 No. 626 MDA 2015
12-02-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KYLE DAVID PARADISE, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 1, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-36-CR-0004603-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Kyle David Paradise (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked (DUI-related). We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant factual history of this matter as follows.
On July 27, 2014, at approximately 12:45 a.m., Officer Bradley Reddinger of the Manheim Township Police Department was on routine patrol in a marked police car in Lancaster Township, Lancaster County. Manheim Township police patrol Lancaster Township pursuant to an agreement between the two townships. While driving on North President Avenue toward Marietta Avenue, Officer Reddinger observed a stationary blue Toyota Matrix in the left turn lane, preparing to make a left turn onto Buchanan Avenue.
Officer Reddinger ran the Toyota's license plate through his computer system which returns information from PennDOT.
Officer Reddinger passed the Toyota while traveling approximately 10 to 15 miles an hour, and observed through an open rear window of the vehicle that a white male, approximately 20 to 30 years old, was driving the Toyota. There is a street lamp near the intersection of North President and Buchanan Avenues, and Officer Reddinger was able to get a good look at the driver for about three or four seconds. About five to ten seconds after Officer Reddinger entered the vehicle's license plate into his computer, and before his patrol car reached the intersection of North President and Marietta Avenues, information was displayed showing that the registered owner, Kyle David Paradise, a 30 year old male, had a DUI suspended driver's license.
Officer Reddinger made a U-turn to pursue the Toyota since based on his observation he concluded the driver matched the description of the registered owner. Officer Reddinger activated his lights and caught up to the Toyota on Buchanan Avenue. The Toyota pulled over in the area of Buchanan Avenue and West End Avenue, which is outside Lancaster Township and inside Lancaster City. Officer Reddinger did not contact the Lancaster City Bureau of Police nor did officers from the City's police department respond to the traffic stop.
Officer Reddinger approached the Toyota and noticed that [Appellant], the same male he had observed driving it on North President Avenue, was still in the driver's seat. [Appellant] provided a state identification card and told Officer Reddinger that his license was suspended for a previous DUI. Officer Reddinger noticed the smell of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle and asked [Appellant] to step outside the vehicle to determine whether the smell of alcohol was coming from [Appellant] or another occupant of the Toyota. [There were four other people in Appellant's vehicle—a 20-to-30-year-old male in the front passenger seat and three females in the back seat.] Officer Reddinger and [Appellant] walked across the street to the sidewalk adjacent to Buchanan Park.
Officer Reddinger has had training and experience in the detection of impaired drivers. Officer Reddinger noticed that [Appellant] was exhibiting signs of impairment in that he had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. Officer Reddinger
administered three field sobriety tests on a flat, dry, level surface which was lit by streetlights, the Officer's flashlight and his patrol car spotlight. These tests were the horizontal gaze nystagmus test ("HGN"), the walk and turn or heel to toe test, and the one[-]leg stand test. [Appellant] showed six out of six possible indicators for impairments on the HGN, four indicators of impairment on the walk and turn test, and no indicators of impairment on the one-leg stand test. Officer Reddinger administered a preliminary breath test ("PBT") to [Appellant] using the Alco Sensor-FST. The Court took judicial notice that the Alco Sensor-FST was approved by the Department of Health as a pre-arrest breath testing device pursuant to 44 Pa. B. 4277 (July 5, 2014). The PBT showed a reading of .138 percent blood alcohol. Officer Reddinger then arrested [Appellant] for driving under the influence of alcohol.Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/2015, at 2-4 (footnotes and citations omitted).
On November 14, 2014, Appellant filed a pre-trial motion challenging the propriety of the vehicle stop and seeking to suppress the evidence obtained therefrom. On February 2, 2015, following a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion. A non-jury trial followed. At the conclusion of trial, the court found Appellant guilty of both DUI and driving under suspension. On April 1, 2015, Appellant was sentenced to a term of nine months' intermediate punishment, the first 30 days of which was to be served on work release, and the remaining time on house arrest with electronic monitoring. This timely filed appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises three issues for our review.
1. Whether reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant's vehicle existed where the stop was based [solely] on the fact that the operating privilege of one of the two registered owners, a male
age 30, was suspended and two individuals meeting the general description of the owner, males age 20 -30, were seen sitting in the front seat of the car by a police officer while the car was being driven?Appellant's Brief at 6 (unnecessary capitalization and trial court answers omitted).
2. Whether the extra-territorial stop of Appellant's vehicle in Lancaster City by the Manheim Township Police, based [solely] upon the facts that the operating privilege of one of the two registered owners, a male, was suspended when two males meeting that general description of the owner were seen in the front seat of the car, violated the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act [(MPJA)], 42 PA.C.S. § 8951 et seq., and requires suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of the stop?
3. Whether the admission of the uncalibrated test results of an unapproved pre[-]arrest breath test device at the suppression hearing was an abuse of discretion and under the circumstances an error of law?
Our scope and standard for reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress is as follows:
We are limited to determining whether the lower court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are correct. We may consider the evidence of the witnesses offered by the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, and only so much of the evidence presented by defense that is not contradicted when examined in the context of the record as a whole. We are bound by facts supported by the record and may reverse only if the legal conclusions reached by the court were erroneous.Commonwealth v. Hughes , 908 A.2d 924, 927 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Following our review of the certified record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable James P. Cullen states findings of fact that are supported by the record, evidences no abuse of discretion or errors of law, and thoroughly and correctly addresses and disposes of Appellant's issues and supporting arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's opinion, filed on June 2, 2015, as our own, and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on the basis of that opinion. The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court's June 2, 2015 opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/2/2015
Image materials not available for display.