 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pryts v. Commonwealth10/28/2005
Timothy H. Pryts appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County (trial court) denying his appeal from a one year suspension of his operating privilege that was imposed in conformity with Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §1547. We affirm.
The pertinent facts, as stipulated to by the parties, are as follows. Pryts was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on October 31, 2004. At that time, Pryts was asked to submit to a chemical test for the purpose of determining his blood alcohol content. The arresting officer read Pryts his rights regarding the taking of a chemical test as those rights were contained on the DL-26 form. Those rights included provisions that Pryts' operating privilege would be suspended if he refused to submit to chemical testing. However, those rights did not include a full recitation of all the criminal penalties Pryts could face under the 2003 amendments to the Vehicle Code. Pryts refused to submit to chemical testing.
The sole issue before the trial court was whether the appropriate warnings were given to Pryts prior to his refusal to take a chemical test. Pryts' position before the trial court was that the warnings contained on the DL-26 form were deficient because the form did not inform Pryts of the full range of criminal penalties he faced under the recent amendments to the Vehicle Code, specifically that the penalties can be more severe if the licensee had one or more convictions for driving under the influence . Pryts contended, therefore, that his refusal was unknowing because he was not made aware of the whole range of criminal penalties he faced if he refused the chemical test.
The trial court rejected Pryts' position due to this Court's recent decision in Weaver v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), wherein we rejected the argument that the DL-26 form does not meet the statutory notification requirements of Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code because it does not inform a licensee of the minimum enhanced penalties for second and third offenders. Accordingly, the trial court denied Pryts' appeal from the one year suspension of his operating privilege. This appeal followed.
Herein, in support of his appeal, Pryts briefly argues, without citation to controlling legal authority, that the warnings contained on the DL-26 form are deficient because they did not take into account the increased penalties facing him if he had prior driving under the influence convictions. Pryts concedes that this matter is controlled by Weaver, but states that he filed this appeal in hopes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will someday revisit the issue.
While our Supreme Court may someday revisit this issue, the fact of the matter is that, at the present time, this Court's decision in Weaver reflects the present state of the law. In Weaver, we stated:
It is not the duty of the police to explain the various sanctions available under a given law to an arrestee to give that individual an opportunity to decide whether it is worth it to violate that law. It is sufficient for the police to inform a motorist that he or she will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation if he or she should fail to accede to the officer's request for a chemical test. The verbiage on form DL-26 informs a motorist that he or she will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation if he or she should fail to accede to the officer's request for a chemical test; that 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.
<
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|