 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garner v. Commonwealth6/2/2005
ree and four of the warning work together to generate confusion. We disagree. These paragraphs contain no contradictory information regarding the enhanced criminal penalties authorized under Section 3804(c). Paragraph three addresses the consequences of refusing and includes specific information regarding the minimum criminal penalty enhancement. Paragraph four addresses the well-settled principle that the Bureau's authority to suspend a driver's license as a consequence of refusal to undergo testing does not trigger any right to counsel and restates generally that refusal will result in enhanced criminal sanctions. The specific statement in paragraph three is entirely consistent with the general statement in paragraph four.
As we have previously recognized, licensees often fail to readily appreciate the difference between the civil suspension for failure to submit to testing as required under the Implied Consent Law in Section 1547(a) and the penalties imposed upon conviction for violating the prohibition in Section 3802 against driving under the influence . See Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott, 546 Pa. 241, 250, 684 A.2d 539, 543-44 (1996). However, the delivery of the warning in paragraph four of the DL-26 form adequately and accurately informs that a request for counsel will be treated as a refusal for purposes of the civil suspension under the Implied Consent Law.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the court of common pleas and reinstate the suspension of Garner's driving privileges.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in the above captioned matter is hereby REVERSED and the SUSPENSION imposed by the Department of Transportation is hereby REINSTATED.
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|