 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reardon v. Commonwealth11/21/2005
e entitled, "Driving After Imbibing Alcohol or Utilizing Drugs," (Driving After Imbibing or DAI), 75 Pa. C.S. §§ 3801-3817. The Driving After Imbibing Law creates three classes of DAI offenses: (1) General impairment--0.08 percent Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) but less than 0.10 percent BAC; (2) High Rate of Impairment--0.10 percent BAC but less than 0.16 percent BAC; and (3) Highest Rate of Impairment--0.16 percent BAC or higher. Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3802.
Pursuant to the Implied Consent Law, the operating privilege of a person who is placed under arrest for a violation of Section 3802 and requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so shall be suspended for 12 months. Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code. Pursuant to the Driving After Imbibing Law, a person who "violates" Section 3802(a)(1) and refused testing of blood or breath shall be sentenced to enhanced criminal penalties provided in Section 3804(c) and Section 3804(e) of the Vehicle Code. The penalties under Section 3804(c)(1), pertaining to a first offense, include 72-hour imprisonment, $1,000 to $5,000 fine, attendance at an alcohol highway safety school, and compliance with drug and alcohol treatment requirements imposed under Sections 3814 and 3815. The penalty provision in Section 3804(e) provides that upon receiving a certified record of conviction for an offense under Section 3802, the Department shall suspend the operating privilege of an individual for 12 months for an ungraded misdemeanor or misdemeanor of the second degree. There shall be no suspension for an ungraded misdemeanor under Section 3802(a) where the person is subject to the penalties provided in subsection (a), which pertains to general impairment, and the person has no prior offense. 75 Pa. C.S. §3804(e)(iii). Where a licensee violates Section 3802(a)(1) and has refused chemical testing, the licensee is subject to the penalties provided in subsection (c), which pertains to incapacity, highest blood alcohol, and controlled substances, and is therefore not entitled to this suspension exception.
The General Assembly's amendment to Section 3804 of the Vehicle Code to enhance the criminal penalty for a DAI conviction where there has also been a refusal to submit to chemical testing has not affected Implied Consent Law proceedings, which are wholly civil in nature. Witmer v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 880 A.2d 716, 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). The suspension under Section 3804(e) (Driving After Imbibing Law) is a criminal penalty and only occurs where there is a violation under Section 3802, whereas the suspension under Section 1547 (Implied Consent Law) is purely a civil consequence for refusing chemical testing and can be imposed regardless of whether a DAI conviction is later attained. See id.
Our Supreme Court has held that the "sanctions imposed by the Implied Consent Law are wholly separate and unrelated to the consequence of a criminal DUI prosecution." Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott, 546 Pa. 241, 250, 684 A.2d 539, 544 (1996). In Garner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 879 A.2d 327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), this Court observed that the law in Pennsylvania is well-settled that a driver who has been arrested for driving under the influence and asked to submit to a chemical test under the Implied Consent Law has no right to consult with a lawyer prior to deciding whether to submit to such a test. We stated:
As we have previously recognized, licensees often fail to readily appreciate the difference between the civil suspension for failure to submit to testing as required under the Implied Consent Law in Section 1547(a) and
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|