# Commonwealth v. Salter

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · August 4, 2015 · 2015 Pa. Super. 166

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969850

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Stephanie J. SALTER
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 4, 2015
- **Citations:** 2015 Pa. Super. 166; 121 A.3d 987; 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 447
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shogan
- **Judges:** Elliott, Shogan, Stabile
- **Cited by:** 126 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969850

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- concluding that the officer had probable cause to stop Salter’s vehicle where officer could not see its registration plate from a reasonable distance

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969850. Public record. Not legal advice.