Commonwealth v. Tarbert; Commonwealth v. Dannaker, 517 Pa. 277

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered consolidated appeals involving sobriety roadblocks in Commonwealth v. Tarbert and Commonwealth v. Dannaker. The court addressed whether systematic stops of motorists to detect driving under the influence violated Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or lacked statutory authorization. The opinion discusses balancing the governmental interest in highway safety against individual privacy and identifies procedural safeguards for constitutionally valid roadblocks.

Holdings

1. The 1983 version of section 6308(b) did not authorize police to stop vehicles merely because officers decided to conduct a systematic roadblock. The statute required articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle Code for each police-ordered stop, and the court would not engraft an exception for systematic roadblocks onto the statute.
2. The breathalyzer results were fruits of unlawful seizures and were properly suppressed in the ensuing criminal prosecutions.
3. A DUI roadblock conducted substantially in compliance with specified safeguards would not violate Article I, section 8, because the reduced intrusion would be outweighed by the compelling public interest in detecting drunk drivers.

Questions Presented

1. Whether systematic roadblocks designed to detect drivers operating under the influence of alcohol violated Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
2. Whether the 1983 version of 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b), requiring articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a Vehicle Code violation, authorized systematic vehicle stops without individualized suspicion.
3. Whether breathalyzer results obtained after the unlawful roadblock stops were properly suppressed.

Disposition

affirmed