Failure to Produce License and Registration; Grace Period following Refusal to Produce
Commonwealth v. Chisebwe, 278 A.3d 354 (Pa. Super. 2022), allocatur granted Jan. 19, 2023, appeal dockets 4 – 7 MAP 2023
In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider Sections 1311 and 1511 of Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Code, which require drivers to produce a license and vehicle registration “on demand” by a police officer:
- Section 1311, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1311, titled “Registration card to be signed and exhibited on demand,” provides that “[e]very registration card shall, at all times while the vehicle is being operated upon a highway, be in the possession of the person driving or in control of the vehicle or carried in the vehicle and shall be exhibited upon demand of any police officer.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1311(b). Section 1331(c) further provides that “[n]o person shall be convicted of violating this section … if the person produces at the office of the issuing authority or at the office of the arresting police officer within five days of the violation, a registration card valid in this Commonwealth at the time of the arrest.”
- Section 1511, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1511(a), titled “Carrying and exhibiting driver’s license on demand,” provides that every licensee “shall possess the driver’s license issued to the licensee at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall exhibit the license upon demand by a police officer.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a). Section 1511(b) further provides that “[n]o person shall be convicted of violating this section … if the person produces at the headquarters of the police officer who demanded to see the person’s license, within 15 days of the demand, a driver’s license valid in this Commonwealth at the time of the demand[.]”
This case arises from Daniel Chisebwe’s (Appellant) initial refusal to provide his driver’s license and registration during a traffic stop. Superior Court summarized the relevant facts as follows:
…when Trooper Arbogast asked Appellant to provide his driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance, Appellant refused to do so. Id. at 11. Instead, Appellant began to argue with Trooper Arbogast about his legal rights and asked to see a lawyer. Id. Trooper Arbogast explained to Appellant that he was not under arrest and that a driver is required by the statutory provisions of Title 75 (the Vehicle Code) to identify himself and provide the requested documentation. Id.
Appellant then complained to Trooper Arbogast that he was not read his Miranda rights in violation of constitutional law. Id. Trooper Arbogast clarified again that Appellant was not under arrest and was not entitled to Miranda rights. Appellant continually repeated, “[i]s this going to be held against me in a court of law?” Id. Trooper Arbogast warned Appellant that if he did not provide the requested information, Trooper Arbogast would take him back to the police station to be identified. Id.
As Appellant refused to cooperate with this request, Trooper Arbogast sought the assistance of an additional trooper who arrived ten minutes after the traffic stop had been initiated. Id. at 12. Both troopers pled with Appellant to provide his information, but he still refused and began to argue that he was not speeding. Id.
Trooper Arbogast summoned two additional troopers to the scene, including Corporal Ty Brininger. Id. After twenty minutes had elapsed since the initial stop, the troopers again advised Appellant that if he continued to refuse to provide the requested documentation, the troopers would remove Appellant from his vehicle and take him to the police station for identification purposes. Id. Appellant still refused to cooperate. Id.
Twenty-five minutes into the stop, when the troopers approached Appellant to remove him from the vehicle, Appellant provided the officers with his driver’s license and registration along with an insurance card that had expired in April 2021. Id. at 12-13.
Slip op. at 3-4. Chisebwe was convicted of summary charges of driving in excess of the maximum speed limit, driving without required financial responsibility, failure to carry and exhibit driver’s license on demand, and violation of statute requiring registration card to be signed and exhibited on demand. Chisebwe appealed to Superior Court, challenging the sufficiency of his convictions for failure to produce his license and registration because Chisebwe ultimately provided his registration card and license within the applicable grace periods.
Superior Court held that Chisebwe could not avail himself of 15-day grace period for presenting his license and registration to avoid conviction where his failure to produce was caused by his own combativeness. Superior Court concluded:
Here, the purpose of the relevant statutes, supra, is to require motorists to provide their driver’s license and vehicle registration to allow officers to verify their identity as licensed drivers with proper vehicle registration. The statutes provide the licensee a grace period of fifteen days in which to provide proof of a valid Pennsylvania driver’s license and five days in which to provide proof of a valid Pennsylvania registration card.
Appellant in the instant case, however, became combative and belligerent upon the demand of the state trooper for Appellant to produce the aforementioned documents. Appellant’s continued obstructive behavior and refusal to provide the documents led to over a twenty-five minute time elapse and the need for the involvement of four state troopers in what should have been a routine traffic stop.
To reward Appellant’s combativeness and refusal to produce a valid driver’s license and registration card in this case by allowing him the additional time period to produce the documents would lead to an absurd result unintended by the legislature and create a policy that would encourage obstructive behavior by a licensee when a law enforcement officer appropriately demands to see his or her license and registration under the Vehicle Code. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(1).
We hold the language in Sections 1511(b)(1) and 1311(c) that grants drivers additional time periods to present proof of the required documents, does not extend to belligerent and combative behavior of the licensee to provide the required documents “upon the demand” of a police officer.
Slip op. at 10-11.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur limited to the following issues:
(1) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1511 (Carrying and exhibiting driver’s license on demand), where petitioner initially refused to present his driver’s license to the police upon demand during a lawful traffic stop?
(2) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1311 (Registration card to be signed and exhibited on demand), where petitioner initially refused to present his registration card to the police upon demand during a lawful traffic stop?
For more information, contact Kevin McKeon or Dennis Whitaker.