 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander v. Commonwealth10/26/2005
the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community." Section 6301 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §6301(b)(2). In order to effectuate this purpose, the Juvenile Act prohibits the detention, commitment, or sentence to imprisonment of any child for a summary offense. See Sections 6303 and 6327 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §6303;§6327. Section 6303 of the Vehicle Code recognizes this prohibition by providing that " o person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a violation of any provisions of this title constituting a summary offense committed while the person was under the age of 18 years." 75 Pa.C.S. §6303(b). Thus, while the possession of an operator's license and operating a motor vehicle is considered a privilege in this Commonwealth, the Vehicle Code recognizes the unique status of a minor who is granted that privilege.
More importantly, while Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code provides that a police officer has a duty to inform a person who refuses chemical testing that his or her operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal and that, upon conviction or plea for violating Section 3802(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code, he or she will be subject to the penalties provided in Section 3804(c) of the Vehicle Code, Section 3804(k) provides that the penalties set forth in Section 3804(c) do not apply to minors. Therefore, I reject the majority's holding that the same principles set forth in Weaver apply to a juvenile.
It may be sufficient to conclude that all that is necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code in the case of an adult is 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. But based on the foregoing discussion, it is not sufficient to make the same conclusion in the case of a minor. To hold otherwise, erodes the protections afforded a minor under both the Juvenile Act, which as I stated previously herein, have been recognized by the General Assembly in the various provisions of the Vehicle Code. The Bureau simply promulgating a new DL-26 form to comply with the provisions of the Vehicle Code as the same applies to minors is all it would take to ensure that the rights of minors are being protected in this Commonwealth as was intended by the General Assembly.
Finally, I do not believe that the fact that a minor is granted an operator's license before reaching majority vitiates the protections afforded a minor whether those protections involve a criminal or a civil penalty for a summary offense. It is well settled that one of those protections is the ability to make a knowing and conscious refusal for chemical testing. As stated by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 521 Pa. 242, 252, 555 A.2d 873, 877 (1989), " he law has always required that the police tell the arrestee the consequences of a refusal to take the test so that he can make a knowing and conscious choice."
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court's order.
JAMES R. KELLEY, 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.
|
|