 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sfida v. Commonwealth6/17/2005
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) which sustained the appeal of Edward M. Sfida, Jr. (Licensee) from a one-year driver's license suspension imposed by the Department under Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. 1547(b)(1), as a result of his reported refusal to submit to chemical testing following his involvement in a motor vehicle accident.
On the evening of December 3, 2003, Licensee's vehicle struck the back of another moving vehicle. After both drivers stopped to assess the damage, Licensee fled the scene of the accident. The other driver recorded Licensee's license plate number and called the Plymouth Township Police, and one of its officers, Michael Cassidy (Officer Cassidy), located Licensee at his home approximately ten to 12 minutes later. Because Officer Cassidy detected an odor of alcohol on Licensee's breath, he asked him to submit to a field sobriety test, which Licensee refused. Officer Cassidy then asked him to submit to a portable breath test, which he also refused. After Licensee also refused to go to the police station and submit to a chemical breath test, Officer Cassidy explained the consequences of his refusal and advised Licensee of the implied consent law under §1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(2). However, Licensee continued to refuse to submit to the testing. Without being taking to the police station, Licensee was charged with leaving the scene of an attended vehicle, hit and run of attended vehicle or property, careless driving and disorderly conduct.
By official notice dated and mailed February 26, 2004, the Department notified Licensee that as a result of his refusal to submit to chemical testing on December 3, 2003, his operating privilege was being suspended for one year as mandated by 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1). Licensee appealed the suspension to the trial court.
At a de novo hearing, Officer Cassidy, the only witness, testified as to the circumstances surrounding his dispatch to the scene, his exchange with Licensee, his repeated requests to Licensee to submit to testing, and Licensee's continued refusal to do so. He testified that he "arrested" Licensee for leaving the scene of an attended vehicle, hit and run of an attended vehicle or property, careless driving and disorderly conduct, but never handcuffed Licensee or placed him into his patrol car; instead, he released Licensee at the scene to go on his way because the charges were all "summary misdemeanor offenses" and told Licensee he would receive a summons in the mail. On cross-examination, Officer Cassidy acknowledged that he did not formally place Licensee under arrest or charge him with driving under the influence .
The trial court found that under 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1), an arrest for driving under the influence , as well as a refusal to submit to a breath test, were both necessary components for a one-year suspension. Because Licensee had not been arrested for driving under the influence, the trial court sustained Licensee's appeal and ordered the Department to rescind the suspension. This appeal followed.
While agreeing that one of the required elements to suspend a licensee for refusal to submit to chemical testing is that the licensee must be "placed under arrest for a violation of section 3802 [driving under the influence]," 75 Pa. C.S. §1547, the Department argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that Licensee was not "arrested" for driving under the influence for purposes of 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1). It argues that the term "arrest" as it is used in 75 Pa.
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|