Commonwealth v. Durso

86 A.3d 865, 2013 Pa. Super. 223, 2013 WL 3963714, 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1702
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 2, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 A.3d 865 (Commonwealth v. Durso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Durso, 86 A.3d 865, 2013 Pa. Super. 223, 2013 WL 3963714, 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1702 (Pa. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

OPINION BY

BOWES, J.:

Matthew Durso appeals from the judgment of sentence of intermediate punishment imposed by the trial court after he was convicted of two counts of driving under the influence (DUI) and the summary offense of operating his motor vehicle without proper headlights. After careful review, we are constrained to reverse.

The facts in this matter are as follows. On August 28, 2011, Slippery Rock University Police Officer Frank Davis and his partner Sergeant Wayne Cochran conducted a traffic stop on Kiester Road in Slippery Rock Borough, after observing Appellant driving with an extinguished headlight. Kiester Road runs through the Slippery Rock University campus and both sides abutting the road are University property. The officers observed Appellant’s non-functional headlight while on University property. Specifically, the officers were sitting stationary on Stores Road, Slippery Rock Borough. However, the officers did not perform the stop on University property; rather, the stop occurred outside of campus grounds but within 500 yards of its boundary. As a result of the stop, the police arrested Appellant and charged him with two violations of the DUI statute, specifically, sections 3802(a)(1) and 3802(b). In addition, police cited Appellant for the headlight violation. Appellant filed a suppression motion contending that the officers lacked jurisdiction to stop his vehicle under 71 P.S. § 646, which governs the authority of campus police for state-owned universities. Slippery Rock University is a state-owned university.

The court conducted a hearing wherein the Commonwealth asserted that 71 P.S. § 646.1 permitted campus police for a state-aided or state-related university to effectuate traffic stops within 500 yards of the school property. The Commonwealth reasoned that a state-owned college or university falls within the meaning of a state-aided or state-related college or university. The court agreed with the Commonwealth’s interpretation of the applicable statutes and declined to find the stop illegal.

The parties proceeded to a stipulated non-jury trial and the court found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned offenses.1 The court originally sentenced Appellant on August 30, 2012, to thirty days to six months incarceration for his violation of § 3802(b), and imposed a $25 fine for the summary head-light violation. Appellant filed a motion to modify his sentence, which the court granted in part on September 13, 2012.2 This timely appeal en[867]*867sued. The sole question Appellant presents is “Did the lower court err in holding that the stop of Defendant was legal and proper pursuant to 71 P.S. § 646.1, and, therefore, denying the Defendant’s timely motion to suppress all evidence obtained.” Appellant’s brief at 5.

Appellant’s challenge involves a question of statutory interpretation and is a pure question of law, i.e., whether 71 P.S. § 646.1 permits campus police of a state-owned university to conduct a vehicular stop within 500 yards of university property. Accordingly, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Sarapa, 13 A.3d 961, 962-963 (Pa.Super.2011). Further, “Our task in construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.” Id. at 964. We interpret statutes so as “to give effect to all its provisions.” Id. “[W]e may not render language superfluous or assume language to be mere surplusage.” Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860, 863 (Pa.Super.2009). Where the text of the statute is “clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Sarapa, supra at 964. If the words of the statute are considered ambiguous, we may discern the intent of the General Assembly by considering:

(1) The occasion and necessity for the statute.
(2) The circumstances under which it was enacted.
(3) The mischief to be remedied.
(4) The object to be attained.
(5) The former law, if any, including other statutes upon the same or similar subjects.
(6) The consequences of a particular interpretation.
(7) The contemporaneous legislative history.
(8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of such statute.

1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c).

Importantly, “[sjtatutes or parts of statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same persons or things or to the same class of persons or things” and “[sjtatutes in pari materia shall be construed together, if possible, as one statute.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1932(a)(b).

The parties’ arguments are straightforward. Appellant contends that, while section 646.1 applies to state-aided or state-related colleges and universities, section 646.1 does not govern state-owned colleges and universities. Section 646.1 provides in relevant part:

(а) Campus police shall have the power and their duty shall be:
(б) to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts, apprehend, arrest and charge criminal offenders and issue summary citations for acts committed on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner and prefer charges against him under the laws of this Commonwealth. Except when acting pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, campus police shall exercise these powers and perform these duties only on the grounds or within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university. For the purposes of applying the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, the grounds and within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university shall constitute the primary jurisdiction of the campus police

71 P.S. § 646.1(a)(6) (emphasis added).

According to Appellant, section 646(h) governs this matter, and campus police at [868]*868state-owned schools are only permitted to exercise their powers on school-owned property, subject to exceptions not pertinent herein. In section 646, the General Assembly set forth that

Security and Campus Police shall exercise their powers and perform their duties only on the premises of the State colleges and universities, State aided or related colleges and universities and community colleges by or for which they are employed and only and after they have completed a course of training including crisis intervention training and riot control as approved by the Department of Education except, that Campus Police employed by State owned colleges and universities located in any municipalities, other than cities of the first class or second class, are authorized, in emergency situations occurring within the municipality, upon the request of the mayor or other executive authority and under the direction of the local law enforcement authorities, to exercise those powers and perform those duties conferred pursuant to this section within the municipality for the limited purpose of aiding local authorities in emergency situations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Com. v. Whitcomb, H.
2025 Pa. Super. 180 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2025)
Commonwealth v. Dischman
195 A.3d 567 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Boyles
104 A.3d 591 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Commonwealth v. Hale
85 A.3d 570 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
In the Interest of T.P.
78 A.3d 1166 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.3d 865, 2013 Pa. Super. 223, 2013 WL 3963714, 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-durso-pasuperct-2013.