 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shannon v. Commonwealth2/2/2004
Kimberly Shannon appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (trial court) denying Shannon's appeal from a one year suspension of her operating privilege pursuant to Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §1547, by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) for her refusal to submit to chemical testing. We affirm.
The facts in this matter, as found by the trial court, are as follows. In the early morning hours of January 8, 2003, Officer Steven Stout, a police officer with the Stroud Area Regional Police Department, observed a motor vehicle drive through several stop signs in the Borough of Stroudsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. When Officer Stout initiated a traffic stop, he observed Shannon operating the motor vehicle. At the traffic stop, Shannon exhibited a strong odor of alcohol and slurred speech. When Shannon was unable to successfully complete field sobriety tests, Officer Stout placed her under arrest for driving under the influence .
Shannon also performed a preliminary breath test for Officer Stout and also agreed to provide a blood sample at a hospital for the purposes of chemical testing. However, as Officer Stout drove towards the hospital, Shannon became unruly, kicking the interior of the police car and using foul language. Officer Stout stopped the police car and read to Shannon the implied consent warnings from DOT's DL-26 form. In response, Shannon refused to sign the form acknowledging the warnings and also did not agree to modify her behavior or consent to the withdrawal of blood for the chemical test. Officer Stout advised Shannon that he would not subject the hospital personnel to her unruly behavior and foul language. Therefore, Officer Stout recorded a refusal.
DOT notified Shannon by notice mailed February 11, 2003, that her operating privilege was suspended for one year effective March 18, 2003, as a result of her refusal to submit to chemical testing on January 8, 2003. Shannon appealed the suspension to the trial court, which held a de novo hearing on May 21, 2003. Both Officer Stout and Shannon appeared and testified before the trial court regarding the events of January 8, 2003. Because Shannon had been drinking, the trial court found Shannon's recollection of the events to be less reliable than Officer Stout's. The trial court found further that Officer Stout's testimony, that he recorded the refusal because he did not want to subject the hospital personnel to Shannon's unruly behavior and foul language, to be both credible and reasonable. Therefore, the trial court concluded that: (1) Officer Stout requested that Shannon submit to a chemical test and specifically warned Shannon that a refusal to do so would result in a license suspension; and (2) Shannon's unruly behavior and foul language constituted a refusal of the requested chemical test.
Accordingly, the trial court entered an order denying Shannon's appeal from DOT's February 11, 2003 suspension of her operating privilege for one year. This appeal followed.
Initially, we note that our scope of review in an operating privilege suspension case is confined to determining whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence, whether errors of law have been committed, or whether the trial court's determinations demonstrate a manifest abuse of discretion. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Ingram, 538 Pa. 236, 648 A.2d 285 (1994). Questions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence presented are for the trial court to resolve. Id. If there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court we must pay proper deference to it as fact finder and affir
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|