Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog
In Pennsylvania, traffic stops often serve as the basis for DUI investigations, and courts frequently examine whether an officer had probable cause to initiate a stop. This was demonstrated in a recent decision from a Pennsylvania court, which discussed the evidentiary standards for traffic stops based on window tint violations and how they can lead to DUI charges. If you are accused of committing a DUI offense, it is smart to consult an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding what steps you can take to protect your rights.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was stopped by law enforcement in April 2022 after an officer observed that the vehicle’s window tint appeared to be excessively dark, allegedly preventing the officer from seeing inside. The stop occurred between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. in a dimly lit area, where the officer determined that the tint level might not comply with Pennsylvania law. After running a background check on the vehicle, the officer learned that the registered owner had only a photo identification card, prompting further investigation.
It is alleged that after stopping the vehicle, the officer detected signs of impairment upon approaching the defendant. The defendant reportedly exhibited bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol. The officer conducted field sobriety tests, during which the defendant displayed multiple indicators of impairment. The defendant was then placed under arrest and transported for chemical testing. The results reportedly indicated the presence of alcohol and controlled substances in the defendant’s system, leading to multiple DUI charges.
It is reported that the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to initiate the stop based on the window tint. The defense contended that the officer did not possess a tint meter, made no effort to measure the tint level, and relied solely on a visual assessment made at night under imperfect lighting conditions. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the officer had probable cause based on his testimony that he could not see into the vehicle. The defendant was convicted at a bench trial and sentenced to three to six days in jail, with eligibility for a DUI alternative program, followed by probation and fines. The defendant appealed the conviction, challenging the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion.
Grounds for Conducting a Traffic Stop
On appeal, the court examined whether the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion. The appellate court noted that under Pennsylvania law, an officer must have probable cause to initiate a stop for a suspected traffic violation, including window tint violations that prevent a person from seeing inside.
The court explained that an officer’s direct observation of a suspected traffic code violation can provide sufficient probable cause for a stop. The trial court had credited the officer’s testimony that he could not see inside the vehicle, which led to the determination that the window tint was unlawfully dark. The court further emphasized that under Pennsylvania precedent, police officers do not necessarily need a tint meter to establish probable cause for a window tint violation. A reasonable belief based on visual observation is sufficient.
The defendant argued that the officer had contradicted himself by admitting that he could see a silhouette inside the car. However, the court found that this did not undermine the probable cause determination because the officer consistently maintained that he could not clearly see the vehicle’s occupants, which suggested a violation of the statute. The court concluded that the trial court’s factual findings were supported by the record and that the officer had sufficient cause to initiate the stop.
Since the initial stop was lawful, the court determined that all evidence obtained thereafter—including the field sobriety tests and chemical test results—was properly admitted. As such, the court ultimately affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
Confer with an Experienced Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you are facing DUI charges in Pennsylvania, it is crucial to talk to an attorney about how you can fight the evidence against you. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer who can analyze your case and develop a strong defense strategy. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact Mr. Cooper via the online form or call (215) 542-0800.