 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Commonwealth11/14/2003
's testimony as a layperson and not an expert.
Next, Miller argues that the trial court erred by concluding that reasonable grounds existed to believe that Miller was driving under the influence of alcohol. We disagree.
The standard of reasonable grounds to support a license suspension does not rise to the level of probable cause required for a criminal prosecution. Banner. Reasonable grounds exist when a person in the position of the police officer, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared at the time, could have concluded that the motorist was operating the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Id. In determining whether an officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a motorist was in actual physical control of a vehicle, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. Whether reasonable grounds exist is a question of law reviewable by the court on a case by case basis. Id.
Initially, we note that Miller concedes that a holding that the trial court did not err in admitting Officer Smuch's opinion testimony that Miller failed all three sobriety tests would make a reasonable cause analysis unnecessary. However, we will address the issue as the trial court found that there were reasonable grounds absent the field sobriety tests.
Herein, Officer Smuch testified that Miller was driving her car with a flat tire and that when he first stopped her she stated that she was going to a grocery store to have the tire fixed. Officer Smuch testified further that he instructed Miller to pull into a nearby mini-mart to put air in her tires and that he would follow her there; however, Miller drove past the mini-mart. Officer Smuch testified further that when he stopped Miller the second time after she failed to pull into the mini-mart, he noticed an odor of alcohol and that when he asked Miller if she had been drinking she responded in the affirmative. In addition, Officer Smuch testified that Miller was very argumentative.
Viewing the foregoing in light of the standard of reasonable cause, we hold that the trial court did not err by concluding that reasonable grounds existed to believe that Miller was driving under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the trial court's order is affirmed.
JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2003, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in the above captioned matter is affirmed.
JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|