Commonwealth v. Elias

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

Commonwealth v. Elias

12 Pa. D. & C.5th 388

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County

DecidedApril 14, 2010

Docketno. SA-203/2009

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Pa. D. & C.5th 388 (Commonwealth v. Elias) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Elias, 12 Pa. D. & C.5th 388 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

DANTOS, J.,

Defendant, Ghassan Elias, has filed an appeal from the order of this court dated March 9, 2010, which found defendant guilty of maximum speed limits¹ and imposed a $47 fine. Accordingly, we are issuing this opinion pursuant to the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

The relevant facts are as follows. On April 7,2009, at approximately 4:47 p.m., Officer Cory Reader of the Berks Lehigh Regional Police Department was performing a speed timing operation with the traffic unit on State Route 100, 222 bypass in Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 5.) Officer Reader was utilizing the police department’s Enradd EJU-91 unit, which is a wireless infrared unit. (N.T. 3/9/10 p. 5.) Pursuant to the December 26,2009 Pennsylvania Bulletin,² this unit has been approved and authorized by PennDOT for use by the police department. (N.T. 3/9/10, pp. 5-6.) Furthermore, this device was tested within the last six months for accuracy; specifically, on April 3, 2009, by Y.I.S. Cowden Incorporated, which is an approved test[390]*390ing agency pursuant to the December 26,2009 Pennsylvania Bulletin. (C. ex. 1: certificate of accuracy from the testing station);³ (N.T. 3/9/10, pp. 6-7). While performing the speed timing operation, Officer Reader observed a silver Nissan Pathfinder traveling southbound on the 222 bypass at 62 mph in a posted 45 mph zone. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 9.) Consequently, Officer Reader advised Officer Steven Marshall via the radio of the make, model and color of the speeding vehicle so that he could effectuate a traffic stop. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 9.)

Officer Marshall initiated the traffic stop by activating his overhead lights on his marked police cruiser. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 12.) The operator of the vehicle, defendant Ghassan Elias, identified himself to the officer. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 12.) The defendant was charged with violating maximum speed limits. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 12.)

At the time of the summary appeal trial, the defendant testified on his own behalf. The defendant openly admitted that he was “rushing” home to retrieve his insulin because he was diabetic and was experiencing a high blood sugar level. (N.T. 3/9/10, pp. 14-15.) The defendant estimated the speed that he was traveling to be 55 mph.⁴ (N.T. 3/9/10 p. 15.) After the brief trial, on March 9, 2010, this court found defendant guilty of violating [391]*391maximum speed limits and imposed a $47 fine. Defendant’s appeal followed on March 22, 2010.

In the instant case, this court carefully listened to the testimony presented and made a determination based on the sufficient evidence offered and this court’s finding that Officers Cory Reader and Steven Marshall were credible in their testimony. Officer Reader utilized an approved and authorized radar device that had been tested in accordance with guidelines and standards. See Commonwealth v. Kittelberger, 420 Pa. Super. 104, 616 A.2d 1 (1992) (holding that the Commonwealth need not produce a certificate from PennDOT which expressly indicates approval of a particular speed timing device; rather, the legislature has considerably lessened the Commonwealth’s evidentiary burden of enabling the courts to take judicial notice of the fact that the device has been approved by PennDOT, provided that the approval has been published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin). Consequently, the defendant’s appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, this court believes that its finding the defendant guilty of violating maximum speed limits is legal and appropriate. The defendant’s appeal must be dismissed.

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

DANTOS, J.,

Defendant, Ghassan Elias, has filed an appeal from the order of this court dated March 9, 2010, which found defendant guilty of maximum speed limits¹ and imposed a $47 fine. Accordingly, we are issuing this opinion pursuant to the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

The relevant facts are as follows. On April 7,2009, at approximately 4:47 p.m., Officer Cory Reader of the Berks Lehigh Regional Police Department was performing a speed timing operation with the traffic unit on State Route 100, 222 bypass in Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 5.) Officer Reader was utilizing the police department’s Enradd EJU-91 unit, which is a wireless infrared unit. (N.T. 3/9/10 p. 5.) Pursuant to the December 26,2009 Pennsylvania Bulletin,² this unit has been approved and authorized by PennDOT for use by the police department. (N.T. 3/9/10, pp. 5-6.) Furthermore, this device was tested within the last six months for accuracy; specifically, on April 3, 2009, by Y.I.S. Cowden Incorporated, which is an approved test[390]*390ing agency pursuant to the December 26,2009 Pennsylvania Bulletin. (C. ex. 1: certificate of accuracy from the testing station);³ (N.T. 3/9/10, pp. 6-7). While performing the speed timing operation, Officer Reader observed a silver Nissan Pathfinder traveling southbound on the 222 bypass at 62 mph in a posted 45 mph zone. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 9.) Consequently, Officer Reader advised Officer Steven Marshall via the radio of the make, model and color of the speeding vehicle so that he could effectuate a traffic stop. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 9.)

Officer Marshall initiated the traffic stop by activating his overhead lights on his marked police cruiser. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 12.) The operator of the vehicle, defendant Ghassan Elias, identified himself to the officer. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 12.) The defendant was charged with violating maximum speed limits. (N.T. 3/9/10, p. 12.)

At the time of the summary appeal trial, the defendant testified on his own behalf. The defendant openly admitted that he was “rushing” home to retrieve his insulin because he was diabetic and was experiencing a high blood sugar level. (N.T. 3/9/10, pp. 14-15.) The defendant estimated the speed that he was traveling to be 55 mph.⁴ (N.T. 3/9/10 p. 15.) After the brief trial, on March 9, 2010, this court found defendant guilty of violating [391]*391maximum speed limits and imposed a $47 fine. Defendant’s appeal followed on March 22, 2010.

In the instant case, this court carefully listened to the testimony presented and made a determination based on the sufficient evidence offered and this court’s finding that Officers Cory Reader and Steven Marshall were credible in their testimony. Officer Reader utilized an approved and authorized radar device that had been tested in accordance with guidelines and standards. See Commonwealth v. Kittelberger, 420 Pa. Super. 104, 616 A.2d 1 (1992) (holding that the Commonwealth need not produce a certificate from PennDOT which expressly indicates approval of a particular speed timing device; rather, the legislature has considerably lessened the Commonwealth’s evidentiary burden of enabling the courts to take judicial notice of the fact that the device has been approved by PennDOT, provided that the approval has been published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin). Consequently, the defendant’s appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, this court believes that its finding the defendant guilty of violating maximum speed limits is legal and appropriate. The defendant’s appeal must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Pa. D. & C.5th 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-elias-pactcompllehigh-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack