Another stupid decision by Pennsylvania courts.....
They have ruled that an officer must possess probable cause to believe a violation has occurred in order to conduct a traffic stop, and not just reasonable suspicion that a violation MAY HAVE occurred. The case is based on a stop for crossing the white fog line on the side of the road a few times.
The officer didn't charge him for Driving On Right Side Of Roadway, which is different than Driving On Roadways Laned For Traffic. Had he charged the first section, he probably would have been alright. The latter section states, "....vehicle shall be driven ...within a single lane and shall not be moved until.....the move can be made with safety".
Apparently the officer testified to the fact that he stopped the vehicle on suspicion that he was DUI, and not based upon an actual violation of the vehicle code.
We always seem to make our own lives harder. Remember, how you testify is EVERYTHING.
And Pa LEOs, I would charge Section 3301 instead of 3309. Solves the issue.........
They have ruled that an officer must possess probable cause to believe a violation has occurred in order to conduct a traffic stop, and not just reasonable suspicion that a violation MAY HAVE occurred. The case is based on a stop for crossing the white fog line on the side of the road a few times.
The officer didn't charge him for Driving On Right Side Of Roadway, which is different than Driving On Roadways Laned For Traffic. Had he charged the first section, he probably would have been alright. The latter section states, "....vehicle shall be driven ...within a single lane and shall not be moved until.....the move can be made with safety".
Apparently the officer testified to the fact that he stopped the vehicle on suspicion that he was DUI, and not based upon an actual violation of the vehicle code.
We always seem to make our own lives harder. Remember, how you testify is EVERYTHING.
And Pa LEOs, I would charge Section 3301 instead of 3309. Solves the issue.........
Comment