 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanczyk v. Commonwealth4/30/2003
Motorist Michael Hanczyk appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which dismissed his statutory appeal from a one-year suspension of his operating privileges imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) pursuant to Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(1), for his failure to submit to a chemical blood test. After review, we affirm.
By official notice dated August 2001, PennDOT informed Hanczyk that his driving privilege was suspended for one year for his refusal to submit to chemical testing in July 2001. Hanczyk appealed the notice of suspension to common pleas. The facts as found by common pleas are as follows. In July 2001, Officer Bonacci stopped Hanczyk for a speeding violation. As he approached Hanczyk's vehicle Officer Bonacci smelled alcohol and observed that Hanczyk's eyes were glassy and he appeared sleepy. These observations caused Officer Bonacci to suspect that Hanczyk was intoxicated. Officer Bonacci asked Hanczyk to perform a field sobriety test and Hanczyk refused. Officer Bonacci observed that Hanczyk was staggering and had poor balance. Consequently, Officer Bonacci arrested Hanczyk for driving under the influence . Officer Bonacci requested that Hanczyk submit to a blood test at Jefferson Hospital, but Hanczyk refused the test. Officer Bonacci escorted Hanczyk to the hospital and read the chemical test warning from the DL-26 form (refusal form) which was submitted into evidence. Again Hanczyk refused to submit to the test and refused to sign the refusal form. Officer Bonacci escorted Hanczyk to the police station where he was eventually released into the custody of his parents.
Hanczyk disputes Officer Bonacci's account and maintains that he was never taken to Jefferson Hospital for a blood test. Rather, Hanczyk asserts that he was taken directly to the police station where police officers allegedly urged him to sign some unknown form. Hanczyk testified that he had not been drinking on the night in question and that he refused the field sobriety test but volunteered to take a breathalyzer test. Hanczyk also testified that Officer Bonacci never presented him with the refusal form.
Common pleas held that PennDOT met its burden of proof through the competent and credible testimony of Officer Bonacci. After finding Officer Bonacci's testimony more credible than Hanczyk's testimony, common pleas determined that Hanczyk was provided the proper warnings and nevertheless refused to submit to the chemical test. Accordingly, common pleas dismissed Hanczyk's appeal. The present appeal followed.
Hanczyk asserts (1) that PennDOT willfully destroyed evidence, namely a surveillance tape of activities occurring in the police station after Hanczyk was arrested for driving under the influence ; (2) that common pleas erred in refusing to allow Hanczyk's private investigator to testify about information regarding Jefferson Hospital procedures elicited from interviews with hospital employees; and (3) that common pleas erred in crediting Officer Bonacci's testimony. Essentially, Hanczyk argues that he was never given the opportunity to submit to a chemical blood test.
In order to sustain the license suspension under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, PennDOT has the burden of establishing that Hanczyk (1) was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned that refusal might result in a license suspension. Lemon v. Dep't of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 763 A.2d 534, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). If PennDOT sustains its burden, the burden th
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|