 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shannon v. Commonwealth2/2/2004
ed the hospital.
Upon review of the facts in this matter, as found by the trial court, and the facts in Guarino, we conclude that Guarino is clearly distinguishable. In Guarino, the licensee remained mute, making no verbal or physical response whatsoever to the repeated requests to submit to a breathalyzer test. Herein, Officer Stout testified that, after Shannon became unruly, he asked her approximately four or five times if she was going to calm down and if she was going to submit. In response, Shannon kicked the interior of the officer's vehicle and used foul language. Thus, this matter does not fall squarely within the facts of Guarino as Shannon argues.
It is well settled that anything less than an unqualified, unequivocal assent constitutes a refusal to submit to chemical testing under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code. Department of Transportation v. Renwick, 534 Pa. 122, 669 A.2d 934 (1996). Moreover, a motorist's refusal to submit need not be expressed in words; rather, a motorist's conduct may demonstrate a refusal to submit to chemical testing. Id.
As found by the trial court, Shannon's overall conduct, which was much more than just not answering the requests to submit to chemical testing, constituted a refusal. As such, it is of no moment that Officer Stout failed to transport Shannon to the site where the chemical testing was to be conducted prior to recording a refusal by Shannon to submit. In short, the fact that Shannon was not taken to the hospital where the blood test would have been performed does not affect the validity of her refusal.
Next, Shannon argues that the warnings provided to her did not meet the requirements of Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code. Shannon contends that Officer Stout testified that while en route to the hospital he told Shannon that a refusal to submit to the blood test may cause her to lose her license. Shannon argues that this warning is insufficient under the law. Shannon contends that Officer Stout did not inform her that a one-year license suspension was mandatory if the chemical test was not completed.
The trial court in this matter found the testimony of Officer Stout credible. Officer Stout specifically testified that he read verbatim the warnings contained on DOT's DL-26 form to Shannon. Form DL-26 contains, inter alia, the warning that a licensee's operating privilege will be suspended for a period of one year if the licensee refuses to submit to chemical testing. See Commonwealth's Exhibit 1, Reproduced Record at 31a. Accordingly, we reject Shannon's contention that the warnings were insufficient under the law.
The trial court's order is affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County in the above captioned matter is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|