 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Commonwealth10/11/2005
e 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.
Id. at 2. Inasmuch as we determined in Weaver that the warnings in the December 2003 version of DOT's DL-26 form meet the requirements of Section 1547(b)(2) of the Code, we conclude that Weaver is controlling in the present case. Here, as in Weaver, Licensee was warned that his operating privilege would be suspended for at least one year if he refused the chemical test.
Nevertheless, Licensee contends that Weaver is distinguishable on the ground that in that case, the arresting officer transported the licensee to the hospital and then read the DL-26 form warnings to him three times.
In contrast, Licensee asserts that in the case sub judice, Officer Dilliplaine only read the warnings one time and then ceased the conversation. A review of the record, however, does not indicate that Licensee expressed any confusion regarding the chemical test warnings. Officer Dilliplaine testified that after he read the DL-26 form to Licensee at the hospital, Licensee completely understood the form and did not ask any questions. N.T. 7; R.R. 16a. The officer further testified that Licensee did not indicate in any way that he was confused about what would happen if he did not take the test. Id. Rather, Officer Dilliplaine testified that Licensee admitted that he was drinking and that "he [did not] see a reason why he should have to give blood if he [knew he was] guilty." Id.
Moreover, as the trial court noted, Licensee did not testify or present any evidence at the suspension hearing indicating that he did not understand the warnings as read to him by Officer Dilliplaine or that for some reason he was incapable of making a knowing or conscious refusal. In accord with Weaver, we conclude that the warnings in the DL-26 form met the requirements of Section 1547(b)(2) of the Code. Accordingly, we reverse.
AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2005, the December 23, 2004 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County is REVERSED and Appellant's 18-month suspension of Appellee's operating privilege is REINSTATED.
JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|