stop violation in Pennsylvania

2025Generally, a stop for a violation of the Vehicle Code requires probable cause if “the driver’s detention cannot serve an investigatory purpose relevant to the suspected violation.” Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc).

2016See Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648 , 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (stopping a vehicle absent articulable and reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment). "[T]his distinction was directly at issue when the [General Assembly] sought to amend Section 6308(b) to its current form." Com. v. Feczko , 10 A.3d 1285 , 1289 (Pa.Super.2010).

2023In Ross, that fact-specific analysis resulted in a conclusion that “the valid traffic stop was ongoing at the time [the officer] asked whether Ross possessed a firearm because he had not concluded the stop with a warning or citation or indicated that Ross could leave.” Id. at 795 (cleaned up).

2023In Ross, that fact-specific analysis resulted in a conclusion that “the valid traffic stop was ongoing at the time [the officer] asked whether Ross possessed a firearm because he had not concluded the stop with a warning or citation or indicated that Ross could leave.” Id. at 795 (cleaned up).

2016See Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648 , 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (stopping a vehicle absent articulable and reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment). "[T]his distinction was directly at issue when the [General Assembly] sought to amend Section 6308(b) to its current form." Com. v. Feczko , 10 A.3d 1285 , 1289 (Pa.Super.2010).

2016See Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648 , 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (stopping a vehicle absent articulable and reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment). "[T]his distinction was directly at issue when the [General Assembly] sought to amend Section 6308(b) to its current form." Com. v. Feczko , 10 A.3d 1285 , 1289 (Pa.Super.2010).

2025To meet this standard, an “officer must be able to articulate specific facts possessed by him at the time of the questioned stop, which would provide probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the driver was in some violation of some provision of the Vehicle Code.” Commonwealth v. Lindblom, 854 A.2d 604, 607 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2023See Gleason, 785 A.2d at 983, 989 .

2023The trial court held this Court’s en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 256 A.3d 1242 , 1248-51 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc), which applied the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kansas v. Glover, 140 S.Ct. 1183, 1186 (2020) (holding police had requisite -5- J-S27033-23 reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when the check of the license plate showed the driver’s license of the owner was revoked and stating, “when the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is the driver of the vehicle, the stop is reasonable.”), was dispositive.

2023See Smith, 237 A.3d at 584 (explaining the officer’s testimony demonstrating that the appellant was “driving upwards of 70 miles per hour in an area where the limit was 45 or 50 miles per hour” and that such a speed “was unreasonable given the specific conditions of the road” i.e., “’windy, curvy, hilly’ with ‘lots of intersections’ and with houses alongside of it” supported “the conclusion that [the officer] had probable cause to stop [the appellant] for violating Section 3361”); Commonwealth v. Minnich, 874 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that the traffic stop was supported by pro

2023See, e.g., - 12 - J-A28017-22 Commonwealth v. Dales, 820 A.2d 807 , 814 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2023See, e.g., - 12 - J-A28017-22 Commonwealth v. Dales, 820 A.2d 807, 814 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2023See Smith, 237 A.3d at 584 (explaining the officer’s testimony demonstrating that the appellant was “driving upwards of 70 miles per hour in an area where the limit was 45 or 50 miles per hour” and that such a speed “was unreasonable given the specific conditions of the road” i.e., “’windy, curvy, hilly’ with ‘lots of intersections’ and with houses alongside of it” supported “the conclusion that [the officer] had probable cause to stop [the appellant] for violating Section 3361”); Commonwealth v. Minnich, 874 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that the traffic stop was supported by pro

2019See Commonwealth v. Spieler, 887 A.2d 1271, 1275-1276 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding police officer had probable cause to stop a defendant for violation of Section 3334 where a defendant moved to and from right-hand to left-hand lane without using appropriate signals).

2016If a vehicle is equipped with a centrally mounted rear stop light, a decal or overlay may be affixed to the centrally mounted rear stop light if the decal or overlay meets all applicable State and Federal regulations.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 4303(b). 8 The section governing this violation provides, in relevant part, the following: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a -6- J-S31039-16 vehicle stopped on the basis of a non-illuminated registration plate required probable cause); Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694, 703 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that a stop for a violation

2008In Commonwealth v. Phin, 761 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. Super. 2000), the Superior Court concluded that a state trooper’s observations, standing alone, were legally sufficient to justify a stop for a violation of section 3310(a) when the trooper testified that he observed a vehicle following a tractor-trailer less than a motorcycle length distance behind at a speed of 55 miles per hour.

2008The court reasoned that “[t]he evidence clearly bespeaks a hazard within the contemplation of section 3310(a).” Commonwealth v. Phin, 761 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. Super. 2000).