 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Degnan v. Commonwealth1/14/2004
David E. Degnan appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County (trial court) denying his appeal from the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing's (PennDOT) suspension of his driver's license for refusing to submit to a chemical blood test under 75 Pa. C.S. §1547 (Section 1547). Because we agree Degnan was provided with the required warnings with respect to his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood alcohol level, we affirm.
In November 2002, Officer William Wenzel observed Degnan driving his vehicle over the speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. Notes of Testimony, March 13, 2003 (N.T.), at 2. Officer Wenzel initiated a traffic stop and observed Degnan with glassy, blood-shot eyes; a strong odor of alcohol on his breath; and slurred speech. N.T. at 3. Degnan agreed to submit to various field sobriety tests and a breath test, which indicated a.167 percent blood alcohol level. N.T. at 3-5. Officer Wenzel then arrested Degnan for driving under the influence of alcohol. N.T. at 5.
Officer Wenzel testified he then requested Degnan submit to a chemical test of his blood alcohol level, and informed him both that his operating privilege would be suspended for one year if he refused the test and that he did not have the right to speak to an attorney or anyone else until the test was completed. N.T. at 5. Officer Wenzel stated he gave the same warning to Degnan again while Degnan was in the back of the police car and a third time at the police station. N.T. at 5-6. Degnan refused to submit to a chemical test each time Officer Wenzel made the request. N.T. at 14. Officer Wenzel further testified he did not use the form known as DL-26 to administer O'Connell warnings because the cabinet in which they were kept at the police station was locked. N.T. at 16.
Contrary to the testimony offered by Officer Wenzel, Degnan testified Officer Wenzel never asked him to submit to a blood test. N.T. at 19. Degnan testified he would have given blood had he been asked to do so, but he was never given the opportunity. N.T. at 20, 22. Both Officer Wenzel and Degnan testified Degnan was not confused during the incident. N.T. at 17, 21, 26.
PennDOT sent Degnan a notice of suspension of his driving privilege. Degnan filed a timely appeal. The trial court denied the appeal, finding Degnan was aware of his rights under Section 1547. This appeal followed.
Degnan argues to this Court that Officer Wenzel's failure to use a DL-26 form corroborates the failure to give proper O'Connell warnings.
To sustain a license suspension under Section 1547, PennDOT must demonstrate the driver was arrested for driving under the influence , was requested to submit to chemical testing, refused, and was warned refusal would result in suspension of his driving privilege. Purcell.
In Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Ingram, 538 Pa. 236, 648 A.2d 285 (1994), our Supreme Court stated a licensee could only be deemed to have refused chemical testing after a proper O'Connell warning, including the following:
irst, a motorist must be informed that his driving privileges will be suspended for one year if he refuses chemical testing; second, the motorist must be informed that his Miranda rights do not apply to chemical testing.
This is by no means a mantra that the police must recite like automatons. The subject matter, however, should be covered in warnings issued by the police.
Id. at 236, 648 A.2d at 294-95. This Court clarified that the police officer is not required to use the word "Miranda," but rather may use terms associated with Miranda such as lawy
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|