Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. KENNY (07/21/55)

July 21, 1955

COMMONWEALTH
v.
KENNY, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 26, Oct. T., 1955, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County, Nov. T., 1953, No. 322, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James J. Kenny. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

H. Lester Haws, for appellant.

J. Stroud Weber, District Attorney, and J. William Ditter, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, submitted a brief, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ. (hirt, J., absent).

Author: Ervin

[ 178 Pa. Super. Page 480]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace dismissing the appellant's motion for a new trial for violation of subsection (b)2 of § 1002 of "The Vehicle Code," which makes it unlawful to drive a motor vehicle at more than 15 miles an hour, when passing a school building during school recess, or while children are going to or leaving school during opening or closing hours. Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, art. X, § 1002 (b) 2, as amended, 75 PS § 501 (b) 2.

The lower court stated that the evidence sustained a finding that at the time of the alleged violation the defendant operated his motor vehicle in violation of the above mentioned section of the code if the testimony of the police officer who estimated the speed of defendant's

[ 178 Pa. Super. Page 481]

    car is admissible and a proper method of proof under "The Vehicle Code."

Appellant relies upon subsection (d) (1) of § 1002 of "The Vehicle Code", which provides, inter alia, as follows: "When the rate of speed of any vehicle is timed on any highway within a business or residence district, where official speed limit signs are erected, as provided in this section, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the operator of such vehicle is violating a speed provision of this act, such time shall be taken by not less than two (2) peace officers, one of whom shall have been stationed at each end of a measured stretch, and no conviction shall be had upon the unsupported evidence of one (1) peace officer, except as hereinafter provided, and no such measured stretch shall be less than one-eighth (1/8) of a mile in length. Under all other conditions, the rate of speed shall be timed, for a distance of not less than one quarter (1/4) mile, by a peace officer using a motor vehicle equipped with a speedometer tested for accuracy within a period of thirty (30) days prior to the alleged violation."

If the method of showing speed is limited to these two methods in the case of violations of subsections (b) 1, 2, 3, then the testimony of the officer is not admissible. Obviously, however, any such method of detection cannot be applied to violations of these subsections. The impossibility of using either of these methods is recognized in Com. v. Wolfgang, 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 252, 257, 182 A. 109, where this Court said: "The Vehicle Code provides certain speed violations, to which neither method of detection can be applied: 1. Speeds of more than 10 miles per hour when passing street cars taking on or discharging ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.