 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shevlin v. Commonwealth6/29/2005
lows:
3. It is my duty as a police officer to inform you that if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, your operating privilege will be suspended for at least one year. In addition, if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, and you are convicted of, plead to, or adjudicated delinquent with respect to violating Section 3802(a) of the [Code], because of your refusal, you will be subject to the more severe penalties set forth in Section 3804(c) of the [Code], which include a minimum of 72 hours in jail and minimum fine of $1,000.00.
4. It is also my duty as a police officer to inform you that you have no right to speak with an attorney or anyone else before deciding whether to submit to testing and any request to speak with an attorney or anyone else after being provided these warnings or remaining silent when asked to submit to chemical testing will constitute a refusal, resulting in the suspension of your operating privilege and other enhanced criminal sanctions if you are convicted of violating Section 3802(a) of the [Code].
(R.R. 39a)(Emphasis added.) As Licensee points out, form DL-26 now informs a driver of the minimum penalties that will be imposed for failing to submit to a request for chemical testing.
Nevertheless, in Weaver v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), we rejected the precise argument now raised by Licensee. In Weaver, the appellant claimed that because the General Assembly added subparagraph (ii) to Section 1547(b)(2), but did not amend the wording of the Implied Consent form to include the new penalties, the warnings contained therein were no longer valid. In rejecting this argument, we explained:
It is not the duty of the police to explain the various sanctions available under a given law to an arrestee to give that individual an opportunity to decide whether it is worth it to violate that law. It is sufficient 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. The verbiage on form DL-26 informs 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; that is sufficient information upon which to base a decision as to whether or not to submit to chemical testing.
Id. at 2.
Inasmuch as Weaver addressed the argument now raised by Licensee in the present case, we conclude that it is controlling. Accordingly, we affirm.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2005, the November 9, 2004 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County is hereby AFFIRMED.
JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|