Opinion
J-71-2018 No. 56 WAP 2017
05-31-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. MOLLY HLUBIN, Appellant
[M.O. - Donohue, J.] Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered May 23, 2017 at No. 951 WDA 2015, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered May 21, 2015 at No. CP-02-CR-0003205-2014.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR
I join Parts I and IV of the majority opinion, and I agree that the police officer who seized Appellant at the sobriety checkpoint lacked statutory authorization to do so. Consistent with the majority's approach, I also find that the remedy of suppression is presently warranted in the constitutionally sensitive arena of suspicionless seizures.
I would not, however, effectively overrule the decision in Commonwealth v. O'Shea, 523 Pa. 384, 567 A.2d 1023 (1989), without advocacy on the subject. In this regard, I have previously expressed an array of concerns with courts acting sua sponte to depart from precedent. See Freed v. Geisinger Med. Center, 607 Pa. 225, 240-45, 5 A.3d 212, 221-25 (2010) (Saylor, J., dissenting). From my point of view, the application of the exclusionary rule to statutory violations, in scenarios in which suppression is not constitutionally required, should be approached as a matter of statutory interpretation (i.e., did the General Assembly intend to afford the remedy of suppression?). Absent otherwise discernable guidance from the Legislature, it does not seem to me that the O'Shea test -- perhaps subject to some refinement going forward to conform it more closely to principles of statutory construction -- is so misplaced as to warrant its disapproval based on premises not argued by the parties.
Justices Baer and Dougherty join this concurring and dissenting opinion.