 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McDonald v. Commonwealth3/17/1998
Appellant Submitted January 30, 1998
OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE MIRARCHI
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) that sustained the appeal of Shannon McDonald from the suspension of her operator's license. We affirm. On September 5, 1996, McDonald, while operating a vehicle, was stopped by Officer Michael Hajdak, Jr., of the Radnor Township Police Department. After failing field sobriety tests, McDonald was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and taken to a nearby hospital to have a blood-alcohol test performed. At the hospital, McDonald was asked questions by the hospital staff andthereafter was taken into a treatment room by Officer Hajdak. Officer Hajdak supplied McDonald with a form advising her of the implied consent law. After handing the form to McDonald, Officer Hajdak stood behind
McDonald and read the form aloud over McDonald's shoulder. At the hearing before the trial court, McDonald testified that this confused her as Officer Hajdak's oral recitation was made at a different pace than her silent reading. Notes of Testimony, p. 30. McDonald then read the form on her own. Id. The form provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
1. Please be advised that you are now under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or acontrolled substance pursuant to section 3731 of the Vehicle Code.
2. I am requesting that you submit to a chemical test of "BLOOD" [hand-written by Officer Hajdak] (breath, blood, or urine. Officer chooses the chemical test.)
3. It is my duty, as a police officer, to inform you that if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, your driving privilege will be suspended for a period of one year.
4. The constitutional rights you have as a criminal defendant, commonly known as Miranda rights, including the right to speak with a lawyer and the right to remain silent, apply only to criminal prosecutions and do not apply to the chemical testing procedure under Pennsylvania's Implied Consent Law, which is a civil, not criminal proceeding.
5. You have no right to speak to a lawyer, or anyone else, before taking the chemical test requested by the police officer nor do you have a right to remain silent when asked by the police officer to submit to the chemical test. Unless you agree to submit to the test requested by the police officer your conduct will be deemed a refusal and your operating privilege will be suspended for one year.
6. Your refusal to submit to chemical testing under the Implied Consent Law may be introduced intoevidence in a criminal prosecution for driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Exhibit C-1, Reproduced Record, p. 45a. The form also had signature lines for the arresting officer and the "Defendant." McDonald testified that she became confused when she read the material in paragraphs four and five of the form and asked Officer Hajdak if she could speak to a lawyer or her brother or someone else.She testified that Officer Hajdak replied that she could not make any calls because it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. McDonald then asked about the difference between the two and the Officer responded to her question. McDonald testified, however, that she was still confused about the different proceedings and why she could not speak with an attorney when Paragraph 4 indicated that she had the right to consult with an attorney. N.T., pp. 30-31. She then testified that the consent form was taken from her as she was trying to sign it and while she was asking whether she could call an a
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|