The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently issued a dissenting opinion regarding whether a constable, Steven Ahmad Wiggs, could be cited for using red and blue emergency lights on his vehicle. The court's decision, filed on June 17, 2026, in case number 641 MDA 2023, has significant implications for law enforcement officers in Pennsylvania, particularly constables, and their authority to use emergency signals.
The case arose when Wiggs, while on patrol in Perry County, was stopped by a state trooper who cited him for violating section 4571(d) of the Motor Vehicle Code (MVC). This section prohibits vehicles other than emergency vehicles from being equipped with flashing lights. The court's ruling focused on whether constables qualify as police officers under the MVC, which would allow them to use such lights.
The court's dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Stabile, argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted the law. Judge Stabile contended that the MVC defines constables as police officers because they are authorized by law to make arrests. Thus, he argued that Wiggs's vehicle should be classified as a police vehicle, allowing the use of emergency lights.
According to the dissent, the MVC states, "Every emergency vehicle shall be equipped with one or more revolving or flashing red lights and an audible warning system." The judge emphasized that constables are included in the definition of police officers under the MVC, which means they should be allowed to use emergency lights just like other police vehicles.
The court's ruling is significant because it addresses the legal status of constables in Pennsylvania. Constables are elected officials who perform law enforcement duties, including making arrests and directing traffic. Their authority is derived from statutory law rather than common law, which distinguishes them from other law enforcement officers.
Judge Stabile's dissent argued that the majority's ruling could lead to absurd outcomes. He pointed out that if constables are authorized to make arrests and direct traffic, they should also be allowed to use emergency lights to perform those duties safely. He stated, "It is undeniable that emergency lights on police vehicles in this Commonwealth serve important safety purposes, including ensuring that the police vehicle is visible to traffic, and signaling to a stopped motorist that it is a police officer, as opposed to a potentially dangerous stranger, who is approaching."
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Wiggs's case. If the majority opinion stands, it could limit the ability of constables across Pennsylvania to perform their duties effectively. The dissenting opinion argues that recognizing constables as police officers is essential for their safety and the safety of the public.
As it stands, the ruling raises questions about the future of constables and their role in law enforcement. If the majority's interpretation is upheld, it may set a precedent that restricts the use of emergency lights by constables, potentially impacting their ability to respond to emergencies and enforce the law.
What happens next remains uncertain. The dissenting opinion suggests that the ruling could be appealed, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the ongoing debate about the role of constables in Pennsylvania and their legal authority.
In conclusion, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania's dissenting opinion in the case of Commonwealth v. Wiggs raises important questions about the legal status of constables and their ability to use emergency lights while on duty. The implications of this ruling could have lasting effects on law enforcement practices in the state.