 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grech v. Commonwealth10/14/2005
, even with the amendments to the DUI law, the statute still retains the civil/criminal distinction, as originally expressed by our Supreme Court in Scott, because it requires "that a licensee must first be convicted in a criminal proceeding of a DUI offense before any enhanced criminal penalties are applicable," and because a license suspension "remains a distinct sanction under an entirely different statute." Witmer, 880 A.2d at 719.
Because case precedent clearly holds that, in the wake of the amendments to the DUI law, a licensee is not entitled to speak with counsel prior to taking the test, we hold that Licensee's argument is without merit.
Next, Licensee contends that the chemical testing warnings contained in the revised Form DL-26 are insufficient to enable a driver to make a knowing and conscious decision as to whether to submit to a blood test. In particular, Licensee argues that the amendments in the DUI law with respect to the enhanced criminal penalties have not been accurately reflected in the revised Form DL-26 because the warnings only relate to the "bare minimum" for first-time offenders and do not adequately warn a repeat offender of the actual penalties as identified in Section 3804(c) of the Vehicle Code. (Licensee Br. at 13.) Again, this issue was specifically considered, and rejected, in Weaver v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) and in Witmer. In both of these cases, we held that the warning in the revised Form DL-26 is sufficient because it informs the licensee that he or she will be penalized if he or she should fail to accede to the police officer's request for a chemical test and, also, that it is sufficient information upon which to base a decision as to whether or not to submit to chemical testing. Weaver, 873 A.2d at 2; Witmer, 880 A.2d at 720-21. Moreover, we note that Licensee's operating privilege was suspended for one year, which is explicitly contained in the revised Form DL-26 as a warning. Therefore, we find Licensee's argument is without merit.,
Based on the foregoing discussion, we affirm the trial court's order denying Licensee's statutory appeal, and reinstate the one-year suspension of Licensee's operating privilege imposed pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Implied Consent Law.
NOW, October 14, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed, and the one-year suspension of the operating privilege of Charles J. Grech is reinstated.
RENEE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|