 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Canaan v. Commonwealth3/16/2004
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (Trial Court). The Trial Court granted the appeal of Jeffrey C. Canaan (Canaan), whose driver operating privilege had been suspended for one year by DOT pursuant to Section 1547(a) of the Vehicle Code, in the wake of Canaan's refusal to submit to a breath-administered intoxication test. We affirm.
At approximately 11:30 p.m. on November 10, 2002, an Allegheny Township Police Officer was dispatched to a private residence to assist an ambulance, where he found Canaan sleeping in the front driver's seat of his vehicle. Canaan's vehicle was parked in the driveway of a private residence belonging to Canaan's friend, and the vehicle's motor was not running and its lights were not on. The officer reached into Canaan's vehicle and physically awoke Canaan, who then began to reach toward the vehicle's ignition key. The officer stopped Canaan before he could reach the ignition, and then requested that Canaan get out of his vehicle. Thereafter, Canaan refused to comply with the officer's requests, became combative, and was ultimately arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Canaan was transported to the Allegheny Township Police Station, where a sergeant certified in the use of an Intoxilyzer alcohol breath test attempted to administer the test upon Canaan. Upon the sergeant's initial request that Canaan submit to the test, Canaan refused, and the sergeant then advised Canaan of the implied consent rule embodied in Section 1547(a) of the Vehicle Code, under which Canaan's consent to submit to the test was to be considered deemed in the face of an officer's reasonable grounds to believe that Canaan had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Canaan thereafter agreed to submit to the test, revoked that consent, and then submitted thereto. However, Canaan's attempts to take the Intoxilyzer test were insufficient to register a result, and the sergeant then determined that Canaan's conduct constituted a refusal.
As a result of his refusal to submit to the alcohol breath test, DOT subsequently suspended Canaan's operating privilege, by notice dated November 27, 2002, for one year as authorized by Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code.
Canaan thereafter timely appealed the suspension to the Trial Court, which held a hearing thereon on March 21, 2003.
Before the Trial Court, DOT's evidence included the testimony of Officer Demosky, who had responded to the initial call regarding Canaan and effected the ensuing arrest. Officer Demosky testified, inter alia, that he had not witnessed Canaan operating his vehicle, that he had no knowledge of how long the vehicle had been sitting in the private driveway, and that he had no objective evidence whatsoever that Canaan had been driving his vehicle while intoxicated.
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, and after consideration of the parties' respective memoranda, the Trial Court granted Canaan's appeal, concluding that Officer Demosky did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Canaan was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. DOT now appeals the Trial Court's order, dated May 28, 2003, to this Court.
Our scope of review in an operating privilege suspension case is confined to determining whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Banner v. Department of Transportation, 558 Pa. 439, 737 A.2d 1203 (1999).
DOT presents only one issue for review: whether, under the facts sub judice, the Trial Court erred
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|