With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". violation of the Vehicle Code, I do not believe the stop of his vehicle was proper. Accordingly, I would reverse the lower court decisions since I believe Appellant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. FLAHERTY, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion. 1 . Judge Cercone, in his dissenting opinion below, aptly notes the absurdity that would result if the Commonwealth's broad interpretation of Section 3304 is to stand: Finally, if we were to construe that statute in the manner the majority suggests, then ever)' driver who exits a roadway and enters a parking lot for any lawful purpose, potentially, would be in violation of the statute. This is a patently absurd result and in contravention to the law of this Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Diakatos, 708 A.2d 510, 512 (Pa.Super.1998) (<HOLDING>) citing 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(1). Commonwealth v.

A: holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes
B: recognizing the legal concept that when interpreting a statute it is presumed that the legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result
C: holding that when interpreting statute court must avoid a conclusion that  is not supported when construing every part or section of the statute and would yield an absurd result
D: recognizing that the cardinal rule in statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature and to avoid construing a statute in a manner that produces an absurd unjust or unreasonable result
B.