 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Commonwealth11/14/2003
Laverne Miller appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court) denying her appeal from a one-year suspension of her operating privilege by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code.
On September 12, 2002, DOT mailed Miller an official notice of suspension notifying her that her operating privilege was being suspended for one year effective October 17, 2002, as a result of her chemical test refusal on August 24, 2002. Miller appealed the suspension to the trial court which conducted a de novo hearing. Based on the evidence presented therein, the trial court found the following facts.
On August 24, 2002, Officer Ronald R. Smuch of the Irwin Borough Police Department observed Miller driving a vehicle in the middle of the road with a blown out rear tire . Officer Smuch stopped Miller and asked her what was wrong. Miller advised Officer Smuch that she was going to Scozio's, which is a grocery store, to have her tire repaired. Officer Smuch directed Miller to pull into a mini-mart which was within fifty yards to put air in her tire. Miller did not obey Officer Smuch's direction to pull into the mini-mart. As Miller continued driving, her vehicle was wobbling and Officer Smuch pulled her over once more.
At that point, Officer Smuch noticed an odor of alcohol on Miller. Miller admitted that she had been drinking. Officer Smuch conducted three field sobriety tests and Officer Smuch testified that Miller failed all three tests. Officer Smuch then placed Miller under arrest for driving under the influence .
Officer Smuch advised Miller that she was going to be transported to the hospital where she would be asked to submit to a blood test. Miller was informed that she would automatically lose her driver's license for one year if she refused to take the blood test. Miller's response was that Officer Smuch might as well put her in jail because she was not giving blood.
Miller was then taken to Officer Smuch's office where he tried to read her the implied consent warnings. However, Miller yelled over Officer Smuch as he tried to read the warnings. Officer Smuch testified that he asked Miller to listen as he read the warning but she kept yelling that she did not care, lock her up, and that she worked in a lab and knew how it worked. Miller was asked to look at the actual warnings and sign off. Miller refused and yelled very loudly that she did not care and stated that she was not listening to a word. Thus, the implied consent warnings were given orally to Miller. Miller asked for a lawyer and in response, Officer Smuch advised her that she was not entitled to a lawyer. Officer Smuch again asked Miller if she would give the chemical test and again she refused.
At the conclusion of the de novo hearing, the trial court dismissed Miller's appeal. This appeal followed.
Herein, Miller raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred when it admitted the conclusive testimony of a police officer derived from his specialized knowledge in the administration of field sobriety tests without satisfying Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702 regarding expert testimony; and (2) whether the trial court erred by concluding that reasonable grounds to request a chemical test were present when the totality of all the circumstances demonstrate that Miller was not under the influence of alcohol.
It is now a well settled rule of law that in order to sustain a license suspension under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, the department must prove that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving under the inf
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|