 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shevlin v. Commonwealth6/29/2005
Paul J. Shevlin (Licensee) appeals from the November 9, 2004 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) that denied his statutory appeal from an 18-month suspension of his operating privilege imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT), pursuant to Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547, also known as the Implied Consent Law. Shevlin contends that DOT's form DL-26, which informs a driver of the consequences of a refusal to submit to chemical testing, fails to comply with the warning requirements contained in Section 1547(b)(2) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(2). We affirm.
By official notice dated May 4, 2004, DOT informed Licensee that his operating privilege was being suspended for a period of 18 months, effective June 9, 2004, due to his refusal to submit to chemical testing on April 9, 2004 as required by Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i).
On June 3, 2004, Licensee filed a timely appeal of the license suspension with the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, which transferred the matter to the trial court. On November 9, 2004, the trial could held a hearing de novo at which DOT submitted into evidence a stipulation and agreement between the parties reflecting that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Licensee was driving under the influence of alcohol, that he was arrested for that offense, that the chemical test warnings contained in form DL-26 were read verbatim to Licensee, and that he refused the request for chemical testing.
Before the trial court, Licensee argued that the warnings in form DL-26 were not legally sufficient in that the 2004 amendments to Section 1547(b)(2) of the Code, effective February 1, 2004, require the police to inform a licensee of the specific penalties provided in Section 3804(c) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3804(c). Section 1547(b)(2) states:
It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that:
(i) the person's operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing; and
(ii) if the person refuses to submit to chemical testing, upon conviction or plea for violation section 3802(a)(1) [75 Pa. C.S. § 3802(a)(1)], the person will be subject to the penalties provided in section 3804(c) (relating to penalties).
75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(2).
In upholding the suspension, the trial court rejected Licensee's position and determined that the warnings in the form DL-26 are "sufficient to apprise a licensee of the consequences of his or her refusal to consent to a chemical test insofar as [DOT's] authority to invoke the collateral civil consequence of license suspension is concerned." See Trial Court's Opinion at 7.
Before this Court, Licensee contends that the warnings in form DL-26 are legally insufficient inasmuch as they only inform the driver of the absolute minimum penalties under Section 3804(c) of the Code. Licensee asserts that without any information as to the maximum penalties in Section 3804(c), the warnings are misleading and prevent a driver from making a knowing decision whether to submit to chemical testing.
Prior to 2004, Section 1547(b)(2) only required the police to inform a licensee that refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in the suspension of his or her operating privilege. The 2004 amendments added the requirement that the police inform a licensee that upon conviction or plea of violating Section 3802(a)(1), the penalties of Section 3804(c) will be imposed. In response to the 2004 amendments, DOT amended form DL-26, in pertinent part, as fol
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|