Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

While some DUI charges result from stops initiated due to suspicion that a motorist is intoxicated, others arise from stops that the police conduct for other reasons. If it is subsequently revealed that the police lacked adequate grounds to effectuate a stop, there may be a basis for arguing that any evidence obtained during the should be dismissed. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed the grounds for granting a motion to suppress evidence in a DUI case in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s arguments. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to examine what defenses you may be able to assert.

History of the Case

It is alleged that, following a traffic stop and subsequent investigation in January 2021, the defendant was charged with one count of driving under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI) and three summary offenses, including obstructed lights. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, arguing the evidence and statements obtained during the traffic stop were unlawfully obtained. A suppression hearing was held, after which the court denied the motion. In a stipulated non-jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI and not guilty of the summary offenses.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, the implied consent law dictates that people suspected of driving while intoxicated must submit to a breath test or face penalties. The police must obtain a DUI suspect’s informed consent prior to administering a blood test, however. If they fail to obtain knowing consent, the results of such tests may be deemed inadmissible. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed the factors evaluated in determining if consent was given freely and knowingly in a case in which it ultimately affirmed the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is smart to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to determine your options for pursuing a favorable outcome.

Factual Setting and Procedural History

It is reported that in May 2020, a state trooper observed a collision involving the defendant’s vehicle and another, resulting in the death of the other driver. The trooper noticed that the defendant seemed disoriented and displayed signs of possible drug use but did not conduct field sobriety tests. Despite being told he was not under arrest, the defendant consented to a blood draw at the hospital. The blood test revealed the presence of methamphetamine and Xanax.

Allegedly, the defendant filed a suppression motion on September 29, 2022, arguing that the blood draw was conducted without a warrant or valid consent. The trial court held a suppression hearing on March 7, 2023, and subsequently denied the motion. After a stipulated waiver trial, the court convicted the defendant and sentenced him on November 17, 2023. The defendant filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pursuant to recent changes in the law, police officers investigating DUI crimes can no longer compel suspects to submit to blood tests. Pennsylvania’s implied consent law presumes that people consent to submit to breath tests, though, and if they refuse to do so, it may result in a license suspension. In a recent Pennsylvania case, the court discussed what constitutes reasonable grounds to suspect a person of driving under the influence and request that they submit to a breath test. If you are charged with refusing to submit to a breath test or any other DUI-related offense, it is advisable to consult a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that Montgomery Township Police arrested the defendant for suspicion of DUI in February 2020. Following the arrest, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) informed the defendant in March 2020 that his refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in a 12-month suspension of his driving privileges under the Implied Consent Law.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed the suspension, and the trial court conducted a hearing, subsequently dismissing the appeal. The defendant then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, contending that the trial court erred in finding that the police had reasonable grounds to believe he was driving under the influence. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania DUI cases, the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt. Generally, to do so the Commonwealth must introduce testimony from a live witness regarding the results of any chemical testing. They can rely on a written report in lieu of such testimony, unless the defendant objects. If the defendant delays in filing an objection, though, they may waive the right to do so, as explained in a recent Pennsylvania case. If you are accused of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating substances, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by a police officer for driving with a suspended vehicle registration. Upon contact, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant and observed signs of impairment, such as slowed speech. Consequently, the officer conducted standard field sobriety tests, which indicated impairment. Based on these observations, the defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) and transported to a hospital for a blood draw.

It is alleged that the subsequent laboratory results confirmed the presence of THC and Delta-9 carboxy THC in his system. Initially charged with DUI-related offenses, the charges were later refined during legal proceedings. After several procedural motions and a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI charges. The defendant ultimately appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the laboratory report. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pennsylvania, like most states, increases the penalty imposed on people found guilty of DUI with each subsequent conviction. Until recently, DUI charges that were resolved via ARD did not count as prior offenses for the purposes of DUI crimes. As discussed in a recent Pennsylvania opinion, though, the law has since changed. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated, it is sensible to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in a collision and subsequently arrested after failing field sobriety tests. Chemical testing revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.188%. The Commonwealth charged him with multiple offenses, including DUI-Highest Rate and Recklessly Endangering Another Person (REAP). He pled guilty to DUI-Highest Rate and REAP in exchange for the dismissal of other charges, with a recommendation for sentencing according to Pennsylvania guidelines.

It is reported that at the time of the plea, legal precedent prohibited the courts from considering a DUI resolved through ARD as a prior offense. However, by the time of sentencing, that precedent had been overruled. Consequently, on January 9, 2023, the court sentenced the defendant to the mandatory minimum of 90 days’ incarceration for DUI-Highest Rate, treating it as a second offense, and imposed a term for the REAP conviction. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion, claiming the court erred in its classification and sentencing. The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, penalties for driving under the influence increase for second and subsequent convictions. While in many cases it is clear whether an offense constitutes a person’s first or second DUI offense, in some, such as in cases involving Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, it is less clear. The confusion over calculating whether a DUI charge is a second or subsequent offense was recently compounded by an intervening change in the law which was followed by a subsequent reversal shortly thereafter, as discussed in a recent ruling issued in a Pennsylvania DUI case. If you are accused of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating substance in violation of Pennsylvania law, it is in your best interest to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the Commonwealth charged the defendant with a DUI, which it characterized as his second offense, despite a prior Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in 2017 for a previous DUI offense. The defendant filed a motion to reduce the grading of his DUI charges to a first offense, citing a previous court decision, Commonwealth v. Chichkin, which declared that Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition acceptance could not be considered a “prior conviction” for DUI sentencing enhancements.

It is reported, however, the trial court stayed the case pending the resolution of subsequent decisions overruling Chichkin. Following the en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Richards, which reversed Chichkin, the defendant’s case proceeded to trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of driving under the influence of controlled substances and related offenses, and the court imposed a judgment of sentence. The defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, while motorists suspected of DUI are deemed to consent to breath tests pursuant to the implied consent law, they must provide express consent to submit to a blood test. Such consent must be voluntary and informed, however. If it is not, and a test is administered regardless, there may be grounds for suppressing the results of the test. Recently, in a Pennsylvania DUI case in which the defendant argued his consent to submit to a blood test was not valid due to language barriers, the court explained the grounds for suppressing blood test results. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in Pennsylvania, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer.

Factual and Procedural Setting of the Case

It is reported that in January 2020, the defendant was involved in a car accident in which he rear-ended a bus at a railroad crossing. A police officer arrived at the scene, and his dashboard camera recorded the interaction. The officer questioned the defendant, who, despite having difficulty understanding English, provided information about the incident. Despite the officer’s persistent questioning about alcohol consumption, the defendant denied drinking.

Allegedly, the defendant, who is from Russia, presented an international driving permit when asked for his license and explained why he didn’t have a Pennsylvania license. After performing poorly on field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. The defendant consented to a blood test, and the results showed a high level of alcohol in his blood. At trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI and sentenced to probation. He then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, people should not be convicted of DUI crimes unless the prosecution establishes their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Doing so does not necessarily require the Commonwealth to introduce concrete evidence of a DUI defendant’s intoxication, however. Rather, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a DUI case, in many instances, circumstantial evidence is deemed sufficient to prove a defendant operated a vehicle while intoxicated. If you are accused of driving while under the influence in violation of Pennsylvania law, it is advisable to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to assess your avenues for seeking a favorable outcome.

History of the Case

It is reported that in January 2022, the defendant drove a friend from a halfway house to the friend’s girlfriend’s house, approximately two hours away. The defendant dropped the friend off at his girlfriend’s house around 12:30 p.m. and spent several hours at a bar nearby. The defendant picked up the friend around 6:00 p.m., and they began the return drive. During the journey, the friend observed the defendant driving at a high speed, tailgating, and exhibiting aggressive behavior toward other vehicles.

Allegedly, around 7:00 p.m., the vehicle crashed, striking a guardrail and overturning, resulting in the friend sustaining severe injuries. A police officer arrived at the scene and observed signs of intoxication in the defendant, including the smell of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes, and poor performance on field sobriety tests. The defendant was arrested and later refused to submit to a breath test. Following a non-jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI, and the court sentenced him to three to six months’ incarceration. The defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under recent changes in Pennsylvania law, people can consume marijuana for medical purposes in certain circumstances. They can nonetheless be charged with marijuana-related DUI crimes if they drive while under the influence of marijuana, though. Thus, as discussed in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a DUI case, the smell of marijuana can be a factor in determining whether probable cause exists for questioning a DUI suspect. If you are charged with a DUI offense, you should talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what arguments you may be able to set forth in your defense.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in August 2021, a police officer observed the defendant driving at 77 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone on a state highway. The officer, after stopping the defendant, detected a strong odor of burnt and raw marijuana, leading to further investigation. The defendant, who possessed a medical marijuana card, admitted to smoking marijuana prior to the stop. Subsequent field sobriety tests revealed impairment, and the defendant was arrested, leading to a blood draw at a hospital.

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with two counts of driving under the influence (DUI) of a controlled substance and one count of exceeding maximum speed limits. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the evidence obtained following the traffic stop, challenging the lawfulness of the police officer’s actions leading to the arrest. The trial court denied his motion, and he was subsequently convicted and sentenced. He then appealed the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. Continue reading

Published on:

by

While people think of DUI offenses as involving people driving cars while under the influence of alcohol, under Pennsylvania law, DUI charges can arise out of the operation of any motor vehicle while impaired by any substance. This was demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania opinion in which the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for DUI while under the influence of marijuana, which arose out of a crash that occurred when he was operating a dirt bike. If you are suspected of a DUI crime, you should talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a collision while riding a dirt bike. The defendant admitted to smoking marijuana before driving and consented to a blood draw, which revealed the presence of THC and metabolites. He was subsequently charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance and other related offenses.

It is alleged that during the trial, a police officer certified in crash reconstruction testified that the defendant collided with the other car involved in the crash at a high speed, which caused him to sustain injuries. The officer also testified that the defendant had a small bag of marijuana in his possession. The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to incarceration, license suspension, and fines, and later added a sentence of restitution. The defendant appealed. Continue reading