Reasonable Suspicion in a Chester County DUI

A police officer in a Chester County must have reasonable suspicion to stop a car.  Remember that reasonable suspicion is specific and articulable facts, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, that would lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity is afoot.  The facts are taken under a totality of the circumstances test.  

There are a host of cases that involve reasonable suspicion and the ability to stop a vehicle based upon it.  In Commonwealth v. Farnan from 2012, it was ruled by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the stop of the vehicle based on information regarding a suspended license was proper, even though the information was provided approximately 30 days previously.  In Commonwealth v. Shabazz, the Superior Court further ruled that a stop was proper for a violation of 4524(c).  Recall that 4524(c) states, "No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material hung from the inside rearview mirror or otherwise hung, placed or attached in such a position as to materially obstruct, obscure or impair the driver's vision through the front windshield or any manner as to constitute a safety hazard."  In the present case, the officer testified that large foam dice and air fresheners (approximately 4 of them) were hanging from the rearview mirror which interfered with the driver's vision in terms of "if he had to turn or if he had to go straight."  

Cases Finding No Reasonable Suspicion

But, in Commonwealth v. Holmes from 2011, the court ruled that no reasonable suspicion existed for stopping for a violation pursuant to 4524(c) because, despite the officer's testimony that objects obstructed the view of the driver, no evidence was presented to the size or description of the objects and/or how they impaired the driver's view.  This is a case that could have been won by a Chester County DUI lawyer.  

Another case that outlines 4524(c) is Commonwealth v. Anthony from a Superior Court opinion of 2010.  The officer in this case pulled a person over for three air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror.  The court ruled that no reasonable suspicion existed to perform a traffic stop where the basis had no showing that the driver's vision was materially obstructed, obscured, or impaired.  Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Drayton from Lehigh County in 2010, there was an improper traffic stop where a 2"x3" air freshener was alleged to have obstructed or impaired the driver's vision.  The court ruled that there was no showing that this impairment or obstruction occurred.