holding that violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 4303, lighting requirements, required probable cause for stop, as “[n]othing more needed to be determined by [the o]fficer ... upon a stop to verify that the plate light was not operating”
How later courts described this case
- holding that violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 4303, lighting requirements, required probable cause for stop, as “[n]othing more needed to be determined by [the o]fficer ... upon a stop to verify that the plate light was not operating”
- concluding that officer had probable cause to arrest appellant for DUI where appellant had glassy eyes, had an odor of alcohol, admitted that she had two glasses of alcohol, and performed poorly on the field sobriety tests
- concluding that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant’s vehicle where officer could not see defendant’s registration plate from a distance of 50 feet
- finding probable cause to arrest for DUI where driver admitted to drinking, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and the vehicle had an odor of alcohol, despite Appellant’s speech not being slurred or his driving erratic
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
SHOGAN, J.:
I question whether the police officer had probable cause to conduct the traffic stop due to the officer being seventy-five feet from Appellee’s vehicle at the time he determined that the registration plate was not illuminated. The traffic regulation in question requires only that the lights “make the registration plate visible from [a] distance of 50 feet to the rear of the vehicle,” not 75 feet. See 67 Pa. Code § 175.66 (k). However, because I conclude that the officer had at least reasonable suspicion to believe that the license plate lamps were not functioning properly, the traffic stop was proper, and because I conclude that the officer had probable cause to arrest Appellee for DUI, I concur in the result reached by the Majority.