vehicle stop unjustified where information relayed by teletype lacked indicia of reliability and defendant’s vehicle did not match description
How later courts described this case
- vehicle stop unjustified where information relayed by teletype lacked indicia of reliability and defendant’s vehicle did not match description
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Benson, 239 Pa. Super. 100 (1976)
” Boyer is distinguishable in the sparsity of information that was available to the arresting officers, who only knew that a certain color Cadillac was suspected of transporting heroin between Philadelphia and Harrisburg.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Jacobs, J.:
I dissent.
This case involves the stop of an automobile on less than probable cause and presents the question of whether such an investigative stop is ever permissible or whether such stops are completely forbidden. The majority interprets the decision in Commonwealth v. Swanger, 453 Pa. 107 , 307 A.2d 875 (1973) as forbidding the stop of any vehicle on less than probable cause. I cannot agree, *220 however, that the Stvanger decision mandates such a result.
In Commonwealth v. Smith, 225 Pa. Superior Ct. 509, 512 , 311 A.2d 716, 718 (1973), we noted that “there is nothing unconstitutional about the brief detention of an individual, under circumstances not justifying arrest, for the purpose of investigating possible criminal activity.” The United States Supreme Court in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) recognized that a police officer may sometimes be presented with suspicions of criminal activity without possessing the requisite facts of probable cause. “A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Id. at 146 .
The Court in Commonwealth v. Swanger, supra, invalidated an investigative stop of an automobile where the stop was merely “routine” and was made with no basis which could approach the “specific and articulable facts” standard of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). See Commonwealth v. Boyer, 455 Pa. 283 , 314 A.2d 317 (1974) (stop based upon “unusual look” of driver unlawful) . The case before us, however, does not involve the situation of a routine traffic stop. It involves a situation almost identical to that which confronted this Court in Commonwealth v. Brown, 228 Pa. Superior Ct. 158 , 323 A.2d 104 (1974). Therein this Court upheld an investigatory stop based upon the reasonable suspicions of the officer where the reliability of an informant who had supplied information had not been established. We held that “ [a] rmed with the informant’s tip and his own personal observation, the arresting officer was justified in believing that criminal activity was afoot. Under these circumstances, he acted in a reasonable manner by stopping the Cadillac for investigation.” Id. at 163 , 323 A.2d at 106 . See United States v. Hernandez, 486 F.2d 614 (7th Cir. 1973).
*221 I believe that the troopers in the case at bar acted reasonably and permissibly in making a brief investigatory stop of the vehicle in question. Because the stop was permissible the lower court was correct in its decision.
Watkins, P. J., and Van der Voort, J., join in this dissenting opinion.