 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Acosta v. Commonwealth7/18/2001
This matter is before the Court on appeal of the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, which dismissed Appellant's appeal of his license suspension by the Department of Transportation (Department) pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1), as a result of Appellant's refusal to submit to chemical testing. The questions presented in this appeal are whether the Vehicle Code implied consent provisions apply when a licensee, although intoxicated, operated his vehicle involuntarily and under duress due to flight from an individual who repeatedly shot at the licensee and whether the trial court erred in concluding that because the duress had ended at the time of the licensee's arrest, his refusal to submit to testing was unjustified.
On March 23, 2000, Pennsylvania State Trooper Issac N. Lamon responded to a radio dispatch concerning an altercation at the Days Inn located in New Stanton. Prior to arriving at the Days Inn, the Trooper received another dispatch that the altercation involved gunfire. The Trooper was given a description of a white tractor cab that had fled the scene of the shooting, without its trailer. He observed Appellant in his vehicle, with its motor and lights on at an intersection near the Days Inn. Appellant drove from the intersection into a parking lot where he was taken into custody by Trooper Lamon.
Trooper Lamon observed Appellant to be visibly intoxicated, with a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, glazed and bloodshot eyes, impaired speech and a dazed appearance. Trooper Lamon and Appellant returned to the Days Inn where the Trooper investigated what had occurred. The Trooper determined that an altercation took place between Appellant and two other patrons. The night auditor at the Days Inn ordered Appellant to leave the premises, and as he was doing so the night auditor fired six shots at Appellant. The Trooper informed Appellant that he was under arrest for driving while under the influence and that he would be transported to Westmoreland Hospital for a blood test. Appellant refused. The Trooper nonetheless transported Appellant to the hospital where he read the DL-26 implied consent warnings form on more than one occasion. Appellant continued to refuse testing, and on April 6, 2000 the Department notified Appellant that his license would be suspended for one year because of his refusal of chemical testing.
To satisfy its burden under 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1), the Department must prove that Appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that Appellant operated or was in actual physical control of the movement of his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; Appellant was requested to submit to a chemical test; he refused to do so; and he was specifically warned that his refusal would result in the suspension of his operating privilege. Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 737 A.2d 1203 (1999). There is no dispute that the Department's evidence established its prima facie case.
Appellant contends that Section 1547(a) and (b)(1) of the Vehicle Code requires that a driver "voluntarily" operate his vehicle before the Department may impose a license suspension for refusal to take a blood test. Appellant additionally contends that Section 1547(a) deems that a driver has consented to a blood test, but this can only be so if the driver chose to operate a vehicle. If the driver was forced to drive under duress, the Department may not deem the driver as consenting to testing or being subject to penalty for a refusal of testing. Appellant argues that because courts acce
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|