 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hildenbrand v. Commonwealth5/4/2005
In these consolidated cases, the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) and Rudolph Hildenbrand (Hildenbrand) appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County denying in part and sustaining in part Hildenbrand's appeal from the eighteen-month suspension of his operating privilege for refusal to submit to chemical testing and reducing the suspension period to twelve months. The Court is asked to decide whether the suspension is rendered invalid due to the police officer's failure to inform him of the suspension period set forth in Section 1547(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1)(i) and (ii), and whether the trial court erred in reducing the suspension period after finding that Hildenbrand made a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing.
By official notice mailed on June 21, 2004, DOT notified Hildenbrand that his operating privilege was suspended for eighteen months, effective July 26, 2004, pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(ii) of the Vehicle Code for his refusal to submit to chemical testing on May 22, 2004. At a de novo hearing before the trial court, Pocono Mountain Regional Police Officer Charles W. LaRue testified that on May 22, 2004, at approximately 9:30 p.m., he was dispatched to the scene of a single-vehicle accident on Route 940 where he observed a Ford-150 truck that had been driven by Hildenbrand flipped on its side. The officer noticed Hildenbrand swaying back and forth and smelling of alcohol. After Hildenbrand failed three field sobriety tests, Officer LaRue placed him under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI) and read him the implied consent and O'Connell warnings from the DL-26 Form.
Officer LaRue advised Hildenbrand, inter alia, that his operating privilege would be suspended for at least one year upon his refusal to submit to chemical testing and that upon his conviction of the DUI charge he also would be subject to a minimum imprisonment of 72 hours and a minimum fine of $1000 under Section 3804(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3804(c). After Hildenbrand signed the DL-26 Form acknowledging that he was read the warnings, Officer LaRue asked him to submit to a blood test. Hildenbrand refused, stating that he did not want to give blood. DOT presented a packet of documents, admitted into the record, which included a copy of the DL-26 Form read to Hildenbrand and his driving record showing two prior suspensions of his operating privilege for DUI convictions on September 29 and October 21, 1983.
Hildenbrand admitted that his license was previously suspended for his 1983 convictions and that Officer LaRue did advise that his operating privilege would be suspended for at least one year upon his refusal to submit to chemical testing. Hildenbrand denied, however, that the officer informed him of the criminal penalties for a DUI conviction, and he denied that he refused to submit to chemical testing. Furthermore, Hildenbrand testified that he would not have hesitated to take the blood test had Officer LaRue advised him that he would be subject to a suspension for eighteen months instead of twelve months for a refusal to submit to chemical testing.
The trial court accepted Officer LaRue's testimony as more credible than Hildenbrand's conflicting testimony and found that he made a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing. The court also found that the DL-26 Form read to Hildenbrand "specifically advised that if he refused a chemical test of his blood, his license would be suspended for a period of one year" and found that " he officer never advised that the suspension could be in excess of one ye
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|