 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pass v. Commonwealth3/19/2004
Joseph Santino Pass (Licensee) appeals from the August 20, 2003, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (Centre County trial court), which dismissed Licensee's appeal and reinstated the license suspension imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) pursuant to section 1547 of the Vehicle Code. We affirm.
On November 4, 2000, Officer Gregory Koehle of the State College Police Department observed Licensee make a wide left turn, strike a curb and fail to use his turn signal when changing lanes. Officer Koehle initiated a traffic stop and, upon doing so, observed that Licensee's eyes were watery and blood shot and that he had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. When questioned, Licensee admitted that he had been at a bar. Officer Koehle then administered three field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. Licensee failed the sobriety tests, and his preliminary breath test registered .06, .07 and .12. Officer Koehle placed Licensee under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
After placing Licensee in the patrol car, Officer Koehle explained to Licensee that he was being transported to Centre Community Hospital for a blood test. Officer Koehle attempted to explain the Implied Consent Law to Licensee; however, Licensee asked Officer Koehle to wait until they reached the hospital, and Officer Koehle agreed.
At the hospital, Officer Koehle read the Implied Consent statement to Licensee from DOT's DL-26 form. Officer Koehle then presented the form to Licensee and asked Licensee to sign the form to verify that Licensee had been informed of the Implied Consent Law and the consequences of failing to submit to chemical testing. Licensee declined to sign the form.
In the hospital lab, Officer Koehle presented Licensee with a hospital consent form relating to the drawing of blood for alcohol or drug content. Licensee declined to sign. Officer Koehle asked Licensee several times if he was going to submit to the blood test, but Licensee never directly answered the question. Licensee stated only that he would not consent to something he did not understand. Officer Koehle testified that he was in the lab with Licensee for about twenty-five minutes, during which time Licensee read the implied consent warning and tried to discuss and debate the law with Officer Koehle.
While Officer Koehle and Licensee were in the lab, Officer Barrett Smith entered the area with someone he had arrested for DUI. Officer Smith saw Licensee reading the form and heard Licensee attempt to discuss and debate points of law with Officer Koehle. Officer Smith also witnessed Officer Koehle asking Licensee if he would consent to the blood test. Officer Smith stated that he was with Officer Koehle and Licensee for about fifteen minutes and that, when the lab became busy, Officer Koehle removed Licensee from the lab.
As a result of Licensee's refusal to submit to chemical testing, DOT suspended his driving privilege. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Allegheny County trial court). DOT requested a change of venue, but the Allegheny County trial court denied the request. After a hearing, the Allegheny County trial court sustained Licensee's appeal. DOT appealed to this court, which reversed the Allegheny County trial court's venue decision and remanded the case for transfer to the Centre County trial court.
Before the Centre County trial court, the parties stipulated that the Reproduced Record from the Allegheny County trial court proceeding should be made part of the record. In addition, Officer Koehle testified to s
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|