.IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. CR – 1543 - 2006
:
vs. : CRIMINAL DIVISION
:
WILLIAM MICHAEL BLACKWELL, :
Defendant : Motion to Suppress
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, filed December 15, 2006. A hearing on the motion was held February 12, 2007. Defendant was charged with arious drug offenses after a traffic stop on August 13, 2006, led to the discovery of controlled substances. In his Motion to Suppress, Defendant contends the initial traffic stop was made without probable cause, and seeks to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop.
According to the stipulated facts presented, the traffic stop was made on the basis that Defendant turned east onto East Third Street from the TGI Friday’s parking lot without first stopping at the properly posted stop sign and without activating the proper turn signal.
Also stipulated to, is the fact that there is no stop sign at that location. Defendant argues there was no probable cause to support the traffic stop as there was no requirement for him to either stop or signal before turning onto East Third Street.
Section 3324 of the Vehicle Code requires the driver of a vehicle “about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway” to “yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway”, 75 Pa.C.S. Section 3324, but does not require that vehicle to otherwise stop. Since a parking lot is not a roadway, there is no requirement to stop before entering a roadway from a parking lot.
Since a “roadway” is defined as a “portion of a highway”, 75 Pa.C.S. Section 102, it stands to reason that a parking lot is thus also not a roadway. There was no allegation Defendant failed to yield to any on-coming traffic, merely that he failed to stop.
Similarly, Section 3334 of the Vehicle Code prohibits a person from turning a vehicle without giving an appropriate signal “upon a roadway”. 75 Pa.C.S. Section 3334(a). Since a parking lot is not a roadway, there is no requirement to signal upon turning from the parking lot.
As the two alleged violations upon which the troopers based the stop were in fact not violations, the troopers did not have the requisite probable cause to stop Defendant’s vehicle.
Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of the stop must be suppressed. Bolding added.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of February 2007, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is hereby GRANTED. All evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop of Defendant’s vehicle on August 13, 2006, is hereby SUPPRESSED and shall not be introduced into evidence at trial.
BY THE COURT,
Dudley N. Anderson, Judge
cc: DA.