 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moser v. Commonwealth4/30/2002
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court), sustaining the statutory appeal of Joseph W. Moser (Licensee) from a one-year suspension of his operating privilege imposed by DOT pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code (Code). For the reasons that follow, we now dismiss DOT's appeal.
On June 11, 2000, Licensee was operating a motor vehicle on a highway in Butler County, Pennsylvania. At or about 6:15 p.m. on this day, Licensee swerved off the road and crashed the motor vehicle. An ambulance thereafter arrived at the scene, as did Trooper James A. Green, Jr. of the Pennsylvania State Police. Trooper Green conducted an investigation of the accident scene. In the course of this investigation, Trooper Green requested that Licensee perform a field sobriety test. Licensee failed this test and was subsequently placed under arrest for driving under the influence , in violation of Section 3731 of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731.
Trooper Green then placed Licensee in his patrol car and proceeded to transport him back to the state police barracks in order to administer a breathalyzer test. Upon arrival at his barracks, Trooper Green discovered that the breathalyzer machine was inoperable. Trooper Green then transported Licensee to the Butler Township Police Station to administer the same. Prior to administering the test, Trooper Green read Licensee the implied consent warnings from the DL-26 form and instructed Licensee on how to take the test. Licensee signed the DL-26 form acknowledging that he had been advised of these warnings. Nevertheless, Licensee refused to take the test. A short time thereafter, by official notice dated June 23, 2000, DOT notified Licensee that, as a consequence of his reported refusal to submit to chemical testing, his operating privilege was being suspended for one year. Licensee then filed a statutory appeal with the trial court.
A de novo hearing was held before the trial court on March 27, 2001. Trooper Green appeared at the hearing and testified as to his investigation of the accident, as well as Licensee's subsequent DUI arrest and chemical test refusal.
On cross-examination, Trooper Green acknowledged that Licensee was unable to provide him with his age upon questioning and was unable to recite the alphabet.
Licensee testified on his own behalf at the hearing. Licensee indicated that he merely recalled leaving his job in the early evening of June 11, 2000, later swerving off the road and waking up and seeing an ambulance. Licensee denied any recollection of Trooper Green, being transported in a patrol car or being read the aforementioned implied consent warnings. Licensee further denied that he was drinking that day.
Licensee also presented the testimony of Dr. Michele Mikolajczak. Dr. Mikolajczak indicated that she first saw Licensee two days after his accident in the emergency room of the Butler Memorial Hospital, at which time Licensee appeared confused and complained of pain throughout his body. Dr. Mikolajczak performed a physical examination of Licensee and sent him for a CT scan of his head to ensure that there was no bleeding or blood clotting. Dr. Mikolajczak diagnosed Licensee as suffering from a concussion. Dr. Mikolajczak indicated that a concussion does cause confusion and loss of memory and that the same are not uncommon in motor vehicle accidents. On cross-examination, Dr. Mikolajczak admitted that, as she first saw Licensee two days after his accident, it was impossible to determine his degree of understanding at the time of the accident.
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|