While some DUI charges result from stops initiated due to suspicion that a motorist is intoxicated, others arise from stops that the police conduct for other reasons. If it is subsequently revealed that the police lacked adequate grounds to effectuate a stop, there may be a basis for arguing that any evidence obtained during the should be dismissed. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed the grounds for granting a motion to suppress evidence in a DUI case in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s arguments. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to examine what defenses you may be able to assert.
History of the Case
It is alleged that, following a traffic stop and subsequent investigation in January 2021, the defendant was charged with one count of driving under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI) and three summary offenses, including obstructed lights. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, arguing the evidence and statements obtained during the traffic stop were unlawfully obtained. A suppression hearing was held, after which the court denied the motion. In a stipulated non-jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI and not guilty of the summary offenses.
It is reported that the defendant filed a post-sentence motion, challenging the basis for his arrest and the search of his blood, alleging issues with the field sobriety test, the lack of a drug recognition expert, and the absence of a search warrant for his blood. The court granted the motion, vacated the defendant’s DUI conviction, reversed its earlier denial of the suppression motion, and dismissed the charges based on a discrepancy between the offense charged and the justification for the traffic stop. The Commonwealth appealed.
Grounds for Granting a Motion to Suppress in a DUI Case
On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the trial court erred in reversing its earlier suppression ruling and vacating the defendant’s conviction. The Commonwealth also contended that the trial court improperly dismissed the charges based on the technicality that the defendant was charged with obstructed lights, not the statute requiring headlights at certain times. The defendant countered, asserting that the Commonwealth’s appeal violated double jeopardy protections by seeking to reverse a post-verdict acquittal.
The court rejected the defendant’s double jeopardy claim, explaining that the Commonwealth’s appeal was permissible because it sought to reinstate the original guilty verdict, not to retry the defendant. The court emphasized that correcting a legal error post-verdict did not infringe upon the defendant’s double jeopardy rights.
The court then addressed the Commonwealth’s claim regarding the suppression ruling. It agreed with the Commonwealth, stating that once probable cause for a traffic stop is established, it remains valid even if the defendant is not charged with the specific offense that justified the stop. The trial court’s reversal of its previous suppression ruling was based on an erroneous interpretation of the offenses charged, and the court held that probable cause was properly established when the defendant failed to use headlights as required. As such, the court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for reinstatement of the original conviction and sentence.
Meet with an Experienced Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you were charged with a DUI offense following a traffic stop, you may be able to argue that evidence obtained during the stop should be precluded, and it is wise to meet with an attorney to determine your options. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer who can inform you of your rights and help you to seek the best outcome possible. You can contact him to arrange a free and confidential meeting by filling out the online form or calling (215) 542-0800.