 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McLaughlin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania4/20/2000
ARGUED: February 8, 2000
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that sustained James J. McLaughlin's appeal of a one-year suspension of his driving privileges for failing to submit to chemical testing pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1). The issue before the Court is whether an expunction order entered in a criminal proceeding against McLaughlin is applicable to his civil statutory suspension appeal. The order purportedly required expunction of McLaughlin's arrest record.
On August 6, 1998, DOT notified McLaughlin of a one-year suspension of his operating privileges as a result of his refusal to submit to chemical testing on May 29, 1998. McLaughlin timely appealed the suspension notice, and the trial court held a de novo hearing on March 4, 1999. At the outset of the hearing, McLauglin objected to the testimony of DOT's police officer witnesses because their testimony would be tainted due to the officers' prior use of documents covered by the expunction order to refresh their recollection of events surrounding McLaughlin's refusal of testing.
McLaughlin's counsel represented to the trial court that at a previous hearing the officers had appeared with documents that were subject to an expunction order entered in related criminal proceedings against McLaughlin for driving under the influence . No expunged documents were brought to the March 4 hearing; however, McLaughlin argued that any testimony based on the officers' prior use of the documents to refresh their recollection was tainted and should be excluded. One of DOT's police officer witnesses indicated that she had reviewed the records at a prior hearing and had not been aware of the expunction order. The trial court thereupon sustained McLaughlin's appeal of the suspension notice. This Court's review of the trial court's decision is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. McKinley v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 739 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
DOT argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the officers because the criminal expunction order was inapplicable to the civil license suspension proceeding resulting from McLaughlin's refusal to submit to chemical testing. DOT contends that without the officers' testimony it could not satisfy its burden of proof. This Court has previously considered the effect of criminal expunction orders on civil suspension proceedings in Conroy v. Department of Transportation, 509 A.2d 941 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), and Wisniewski v. Commonwealth, 457 A.2d 1334 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
In Wisniewski a police officer completed a DOT form to notify DOT of the licensee's refusal to submit to chemical testing. The officer completed the form after a trial court had ordered the expunction of records pertaining to the licensee's related criminal proceedings. The licensee argued that the expunction order was broad enough to include the notice to DOT and that the officer was therefore in contempt of the order when the officer sent the notice to DOT. The officer testified about the licensee's arrest and refusal of testing at the hearing on the licensee's suspension appeal. The Court examined the expunction order and noted that DOT was not among the eight keepers of records addressed in the expunction order and that the order specifically referred to criminal records and did not embrace civil or administrative proceedings. Furthermore, the inclusion of the suspension
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|