Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA V. LARRY SCHILDT (09/07/84)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 7, 1984

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. LARRY SCHILDT, APPELLANT

No. 369 Harrisburg, 1982, Appeal from the Order entered October 4, 1982, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, at No. 196 Summary Conviction, 1980.

Before Del Sole, Popovich and Roberts, JJ.

Per Curiam:

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

DEL SOLE, J.:

I respectfully dissent.

Idisagree with the majority that this case involved a systematic vehicle stop.

On appeal, we must accept as true Trooper Zeisloft's testimony that he intended to stop all vehicles of class 4 or higher. If we were to apply a subjective test in determining whether the stop was systematic, I would agree with the majority that the fact no other stops occurred was a matter affecting only the trooper's credibility. The trooper's intent would be the decisive factor.

I believe, however, that the test for a systematic stop must be objective. Regardless of the trooper's intent, he also testified he was "sure" other trucks passed while Appellant's vehicle was being weighed which were "probably" class 4 or higher. Applying an objective test, the stop in this case was not systematic.*fn1


*fn1 I do not mean to imply that every vehicle must be stopped in order to constitute a systematic stop. However, there must be some non-random method of selection, such as every third vehicle, etc.

*fn2 See Commonwealth v. Berry, 305 Pa. Super. 8, 451 A.2d 4 (1982).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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