Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog

Challenges to DUI convictions increasingly test the boundaries of what constitutes a vehicle, impairment, and sufficient proof of unsafe operation. Courts are often asked to decide whether observations of erratic behavior and intoxication, without chemical testing or standardized sobriety evaluations, can support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In a recent Pennsylvania decision, the court addressed these issues in a DUI prosecution involving a bicycle, offering important guidance on how broadly impairment and vehicle operation may be interpreted under state law. If you are charged with a DUI crime, you should consider speaking with a knowledgeable Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and potential defenses.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that a concerned citizen observed the defendant riding a bicycle unsteadily in the early morning hours, then saw the defendant collide with a fixed object and fall. After the collision, the defendant crossed the street on the bicycle and remained in a nearby parking lot. The witness contacted law enforcement out of concern for the defendant’s safety and waited briefly for officers to arrive before leaving the area.

Reportedly, a responding officer arrived at the scene and observed the defendant wobbling while standing near the bicycle. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol and noticed fresh cuts on the defendant’s legs. During their interaction, the defendant spoke in rambling and incoherent sentences and attempted, without prompting, to demonstrate sobriety by balancing, nearly falling into the roadway. The officer attempted to arrange alternate transportation for the defendant, but the defendant could not provide contact information. The officer then placed the defendant under arrest for public intoxication. Continue reading

Challenges to DUI convictions frequently involve disputes over the legality of traffic stops, the reliability of police testimony, and whether later discovered information undermines a conviction. In a recent Pennsylvania decision, the court addressed whether evidence of an arresting trooper’s alleged misconduct in unrelated cases justified a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. If you are charged with a DUI offense, you should consider speaking with a knowledgeable Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to evaluate potential defenses and appellate options in light of current case law.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that a state trooper initiated a traffic stop after observing the defendant commit lane violations and follow another vehicle too closely. During the stop, the trooper observed signs of impairment, including bloodshot eyes and the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle. The defendant admitted to having smoked marijuana earlier in the day and consented to field sobriety testing. Based on the trooper’s observations and the results of those tests, the defendant was arrested for suspected driving under the influence and later consented to a blood draw that indicated the presence of THC at a level impairing safe driving.

Allegedly, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the stop, arrest, and blood test results in municipal court, arguing that the trooper lacked a lawful basis for the stop and that the evidence was obtained improperly. The municipal court denied the suppression motion and, following a bench trial, found the defendant guilty of DUI. Prior to sentencing, the defendant sought extraordinary relief in the form of a new trial, asserting that after discovered evidence revealed the arresting trooper had been involved in other unrelated DUI cases where reports conflicted with video evidence, leading to the withdrawal of charges. Continue reading

Challenges to DUI convictions often turn on disputes about when a defendant consumed alcohol and whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove impairment at the time of driving. A recent decision demonstrates how Pennsylvania courts evaluate these arguments and how review focuses on the adequacy of proof rather than credibility disputes. If you are charged with a DUI offense in Pennsylvania, it is smart to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that law enforcement responded to a domestic disturbance in Indiana County in the late afternoon. Officers received information that the defendant had been drinking prior to leaving the scene in a silver vehicle. A trooper traveling along a nearby roadway soon located a vehicle matching the description parked outside a convenience store.

Allegedly, the trooper observed the defendant exit the driver’s side of the vehicle and walk into the store. That alcohol was not sold in the convenience store, which occupied one side of a building shared with a pizza shop. The trooper contacted the defendant inside, directed him outside, and observed multiple signs of impairment, including a staggered gait, the odor of alcohol, and bloodshot eyes. Continue reading

In Pennsylvania, the definition of “vehicle” under the DUI statute is broadly construed, encompassing more than just traditional automobiles. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court reaffirmed that bicycles, including motorized variants, fall within the statutory framework for driving under the influence. If you are facing DUI charges, even in cases involving nontraditional vehicles, it is essential to understand how broadly these laws apply and to consult with an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was detained on a Pennsylvania highway while operating a battery-powered, two-wheeled cycle. The cycle lacked pedals, lights, and turn signals, and was incapable of displaying a license plate. Despite these deficiencies, the vehicle reached speeds of up to seventeen miles per hour. The defendant was convicted following a bench trial of DUI, operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock, and driving while his license was suspended or revoked.

It is alleged that this was not the defendant’s first encounter with Pennsylvania’s DUI statutes, as the conviction marked his third such offense. The trial court imposed a sentence that included three months of incarceration with eligibility for work release, followed by electronic monitoring and probation. The defendant thereafter filed an appeal, raising constitutional and statutory arguments against the scope of the DUI statute and the definition of electric bicycles under Pennsylvania law. Continue reading

In Pennsylvania, a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) of a controlled substance does not require proof of the identity of the drug, chemical testing, or the presence of paraphernalia. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court demonstrates this principle, affirming a DUI conviction based solely on officers’ observations, field sobriety testing, and the defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood test. If you are charged with DUI involving controlled substances, it is crucial to understand that circumstantial evidence alone may suffice for a conviction, and you should promptly consult with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was pulled over by Pennsylvania State Troopers in the early hours of the morning for driving without headlights and weaving into oncoming traffic. The stop occurred in Bucks County near a Wawa parking lot, where the defendant eventually complied after initially failing to stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, troopers allegedly observed signs of impairment, including jittery behavior, glassy and bloodshot eyes, and delayed pupillary response. The defendant’s speech was described as overly talkative and tangential, and his responses to questions were rambling and inconsistent.

It is alleged that after obtaining the defendant’s documentation and conferring about their observations, the troopers asked him to exit the vehicle. The defendant refused repeatedly for several minutes before eventually complying. At that point, based on his demeanor and physical indicators, the troopers suspected impairment by a controlled substance and conducted field sobriety testing. According to the officers, the defendant showed multiple signs of impairment during the horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand tests. He stepped off the line, missed heel-to-toe contact, swayed, and used his arms for balance. Continue reading

In Pennsylvania, a DUI conviction does not necessarily require blood alcohol testing or field sobriety results. Rather, courts are permitted to consider circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s behavior, appearance, and manner of driving, to determine whether the individual was incapable of safe operation due to alcohol consumption. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed this principle, holding that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported a DUI conviction even in the absence of chemical testing or direct observation of drinking. If you are charged with a DUI, it is important to understand what evidence may be used against you, and you should consult a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant attended a can-release party at a local brewery on August 6, 2022, arriving around noon and remaining at the event for over three hours. Witnesses observed the defendant seated in the same location throughout the afternoon. When the event ended, the defendant entered his vehicle and attempted to leave the parking lot. He accelerated rapidly and crashed through the wall of the brewery, then reversed through the parking lot and onto a nearby street.

It is reported that the police arrived shortly thereafter and observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle. The officer who responded to the scene reportedly noted signs of intoxication, including glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and delayed responses. According to the officer’s report, the defendant admitted that he had been drinking and acknowledged that he had struck the building. It is further reported that the officer attempted to conduct field sobriety testing, but the defendant claimed injury from the crash and was transported to the hospital before any tests could be administered. The defendant left the hospital prior to the officer’s arrival, and no blood alcohol test was conducted. Continue reading