## Facts

- A Pennsylvania state trooper saw Victoria Livingstone’s car stopped on the shoulder of Interstate 79 at night with the engine running and no hazard lights.
- The trooper activated his emergency lights and pulled alongside the vehicle from his marked cruiser, then motioned for Livingstone to lower her window and asked if she was okay.
- Livingstone said she was fine and explained she was traveling to New York; the trooper then pulled in front of her vehicle, exited, and approached on foot.
- A second trooper arrived and parked behind Livingstone’s vehicle.
- The trooper requested Livingstone’s license, asked whether she had been drinking, and directed her to exit the car for field sobriety testing.
- A portable breath test indicated alcohol; a later blood test showed a 0.205% BAC.
- Livingstone was charged and convicted of DUI after the trial court denied her motion to suppress the blood-alcohol evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trooper’s activation of emergency lights and positioning alongside a stopped vehicle constituted an investigatory detention (seizure) rather than a mere encounter.
2. If a seizure occurred, whether it was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
3. If not supported by reasonable suspicion, whether the seizure was justified under a community caretaking/public servant exception to the warrant requirement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and remanded.
- The Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper’s conduct amounted to an investigatory detention because a reasonable motorist would not feel free to leave.
- The Court held the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion at the moment the seizure occurred; the observed facts before the seizure did not support suspicion of DUI or other crime.
- The Court recognized a community caretaking/public servant exception under Pennsylvania law but held it did not justify this detention because the encounter was not strictly limited to a safety check and quickly became investigative.
- Because the detention was unlawful, evidence obtained as a result was subject to suppression.

## Legal Principles

- A seizure occurs when, considering the totality of circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to decline police requests or terminate the encounter.
- Use of emergency lights and marked-cruiser positioning during a roadside contact can constitute a show of authority that converts a welfare inquiry into an investigatory detention.
- Reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the seizure and cannot be supplied by observations made afterward.
- Pennsylvania recognizes a community caretaking/public servant exception permitting certain warrantless actions undertaken for non-investigatory public safety reasons.
- Community caretaking actions must be genuinely safety-motivated and strictly limited in scope and duration; they cannot serve as a pretext or expand into investigation without independent constitutional justification.

## Conclusion

The court held that activating emergency lights and pulling alongside a stopped motorist on an interstate shoulder constituted a seizure, that the seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion, and that community caretaking did not justify the officer’s escalation into DUI investigation; therefore, suppression was required and the judgment was reversed and remanded.


Commonwealth v. Livingstone, 174 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2017)