 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tucker v. Commonwealth11/18/2004
Carolynn Tucker (Licensee) appeals pro se from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Trial Court) that denied Licensee's appeal from a one-year suspension of her operating privilege. Licensee's operating privilege was suspended for one year by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) pursuant to Section 1547(a) of the Vehicle Code,*fn1 in the wake of Licensee's refusal to submit to a blood test to determine the level of alcohol in her blood. We affirm.
On December 17, 2003, Officer David J. Coppola of the Uwchlan Township Police Department was dispatched to the scene of a one vehicle car accident within his jurisdiction. Upon his arrival at the scene, Officer Coppola found Licensee's car crashed into a telephone pole, and Licensee standing nearby. Licensee stated that she had been the driver of the vehicle, had been talking on her cellular telephone while driving, and had veered off the road and struck the telephone pole. Officer Coppola detected an odor of alcohol on Licensee's breath, and observed that her eyes were red and watery and her speech somewhat slurred, and therefore requested that Licensee submit to field sobriety tests. Upon the conclusion of three such tests, Officer Coppola opined that Licensee had failed all three, and further requested that Licensee submit to a field breath test, which test Licensee took and failed.
Officer Coppola then informed Licensee that she was under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, and that she would be transported to Chester County Hospital for a blood test. Officer Coppola subsequently informed Licensee of the implied consent rule embodied in Section 1547(a) of the Vehicle Code,*fn2 under which Licensee's consent to submit to the test was to be considered deemed in the face of the officer's reasonable grounds to believe that Licensee had been driving under the influence of alcohol.
Licensee became uncooperative with Officer Coppola's request, and informed the officer that she would like to speak to her lawyer. After telling Licensee that she did not have that right prior to submitting to the requested blood test, Officer Coppola again asked Licensee if she would consent to the test as requested. Licensee replied that she would not submit. Some time later, as Licensee was being removed from the hospital, she stated that she would submit to the blood test. This later request by Licensee was denied by Officer Coppola.
As a result of her refusal to submit to the alcohol breath test, DOT subsequently suspended Licensee's operating privilege, by notice dated January 5, 2004, for one year as authorized by Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code.*fn3 Licensee thereafter timely appealed the suspension to the Trial Court, which held a hearing thereon on March 25, 2004. The Trial Court, upon hearing testimony and receiving evidence from both parties, denied Licensee's appeal. Licensee now appeals to this Court, pro se, from the Trial Court's order dated March 25, 2004.
Our scope of review in an operating privilege suspension case is confined to determining whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 737 A.2d 1203 (1999).
In the instant appeal, Licensee argues that the Trial Court erred in concluding that Licensee refused to submit to the requested chemical test of the alcohol content of her blood.
First, Licensee asserts that her initial refusal to submit to Officer's Coppola's request that she submit to a blood test was attributable to her fear of needles. Whi
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|