Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog

Published on: July 5, 2016

Supreme Court Ruling To Have Major Impact On DUI Cases

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court will have a major impact on DUI cases across the Country including Pennsylvania. Until now a police officer was not required to obtain a search warrant for a driver’s blood if they suspected impairment. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA changed all this. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf The Court held that “The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests”. The Court went onto say that breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns unlike blood tests which require the piercing of the skin and extract a part of the subject’s body.

In Pennsylvania this will have an significant impact on how DUI cases are prosecuted. District Attorney’s Offices in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Bucks and Delaware Counties are deciding what they will do with cases presently in the system that are affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Prosecution of cases in which a breath test was involved should have no impact since again the Court ruled that a search warrant is not required for a breath test. On the other hand if an individual has been charged with a DUI and submitted to a blood test BIRCHFIELD will have an impact on the outcome.

EXAMPLES OF HOW BIRCHFIELD DECISION WILL AFFECT CASES

Published on: July 1, 2016

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Holds Stop Based on Informant’s Tip Backed By Reasonable Suspicion

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed an appellant’s conviction of DUI and related charges, holding his arrest based on an informant’s tip was supported by reasonable suspicion, and his conviction was supported by the weight of the evidence.

John Vincent Kennedy was convicted following a bench trial of DUI, general impairment, careless driving, and restriction on alcoholic beverages, among other charges. He was sentenced on June 5, 2015 in Dauphin County. Kennedy filed a post-sentence motion, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, which the trial court denied. Kennedy appealed.

Published on: June 15, 2016

Nottingham Man Sentenced to Prison for Giving Beer to Amish Teens, Then Causing DUI Crash

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

Nottingham resident Thomas Candler Felts will serve 30 days to six months for giving beer to Amish teens and then slamming their horse-drawn buggy with his car. The 25-year-old Felts was sentenced this month in Lancaster County Court after pleading guilty to misdemeanor counts of furnishing alcohol to minors and DUI. At the time of the March hearing, Felts had no prior record. His prison sentence is scheduled to be followed with a year in probation.

Prosecutor Travis Anderson stated at the sentencing hearing that Felts’ case was among the most “bizarre” DUI cases he’d ever seen.

Published on: June 1, 2016

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Holds Trial Court’s Identification of Defense Counsel’s as Public Defender Not Grounds for Mistrial

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held that a trial court’s reference to defense counsel’s status as a public defender before the jury in a DUI case was not grounds for a mistrial.

One afternoon in May 2014, Pennsylvania state trooper Michael Perillo was dispatched to Interstate 76-West due to reports of erratic driving. Appellant James Melnick reportedly drove his blue Volvo past other drivers, struck the center concrete barrier, and continued driving. Melnick continued driving recklessly. He nearly struck two vehicles and crossed rumble strips. As he proceeded onto State Route 422 West, Melnick almost struck the guardrail. Once on the road, he drifted out of his lane and struck another vehicle driven by Derek Beeks, who had his four-year-old granddaughter as a passenger.

Published on: May 19, 2016

Changes coming for Pennsylvania ignition interlock laws

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

Under current Pennsylvania DUI laws if a person is convicted of a first offense DUI they are not mandated to install an ignition interlock in their vehicle. This is the case no matter what an individuals blood alcohol level is. An ignition interlock however is required to be installed in a vehicle for all repeat DUI offenders. The Pennsylvania ignition interlock law was first enacted to reduce repeat driving under the influences offenses and to improve highway safety. It appears this all could change thanks to Senate Bill 290.

An ignition interlock device is basically a breathalyzer that is hooked up to an individuals vehicle. A driver would be required to blow into a mouthpiece attached to this device before their car will start. The purpose of this device is to keep an intoxicated driver from being able to start their car. In addition to starting the vehicle, the device will also prompt the driver to blow into the device periodically when prompted to do so.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives this past Monday voted 193-2 to require the use of an ignition interlock device for most drivers convicted of a first offense DUI. Just yesterday the bill was unanimously passed by the Senate and now it is expected Governor Tom Wolf will sign into law however the new provisions would not take effect for close to 15 months. Under this bill, an individual with a first time DUI conviction with a blood alcohol level of .10 % and greater would be able to avoid the one year license suspension (currently the law) by installing an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for one year. As it stands right now an individual can apply for an occupational limited license but they have to first serve 60 days of their suspension. This new law would allow a person to drive for employment, school, doctors office or even just to do daily errands. However if this bill is eventually signed into law it would not extend to commercial drivers, persons who are involved in a DUI related accidents where someone dies or people accepted into the diversionary program ARD.https://www.pennsylvaniaduilawyers.com/a-r-d-accelerated-rehabilitative-disposition.html. Many states around the country already have similar laws on the books for first time DUI offenders.

Published on: May 18, 2016

Pennsylvania Parents Petition for Stricter DUI Laws

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

Parents throughout Pennsylvania gathered last month to advocate for harsher DUI laws that could have potentially saved their children’s lives.

PA Parents Against Impaired Driving (PPAID) is pushing Pennsylvania lawmakers to make stricter penalties against drunk driving. Specifically, they’re advocating for Senate Bill 290, which would require ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders. SB 290 will likely be reviewed by the governor this month.

Published on: May 15, 2016

Is texting and driving more dangerous then drinking and driving

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is no doubt very dangerous. Having spent a large part of my professional career defending individuals accused of DUI I have seen many lives destroyed by the decisions that some chose to make. I’m here to tell you that over the last few years texting and driving has become more dangerous then DUI. Yes you heard me correctly, texting and driving is more dangerous then DUI. Continue reading

Published on: May 11, 2016

DUI and Athletes

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

As a huge sports fan I am fascinated and surprised when I read about prominent athletes being arrested for Driving Under the Influence. Most people including myself feel that athletes are supposed to be role models for the youth and give them someone to look up to. After all what young boy doesn’t dream of one day playing in the NBA, NFL or MLB. To many kids these athletes can do no wrong and literally walk on water. They make millions of dollars, drive fancy cars and most have gorgeous supermodel girlfriends or wives. Unfortunately all you have to do is read the papers to see that athletes are making the news to often for the wrong reasons including being arrested for DUI.

Just today St. Louis Rams safety T.J. McDonald was arrested for DUI in Los Angeles. Although all the facts are not out yet it appears that he was under the influence of something other then alcohol from initial reports.
Last November former Philadelphia Eagles and Minnesota Vikings quarterback Donavan McNabb was sentenced to 18 days in jail for being arrested in Arizona on June 28, 2015. It was reported that his blood alcohol level at the time he was driving was a .17%

Published on: May 5, 2016

Challenging a DUI Arrest in Pennsylvania

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

Everyday I see individuals who are charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania walk into court and simply plead guilty. Most of the time I know nothing about their case or what their attorney has done or hasn’t done. People need to understand that just because you are arrested for a DUI that doesn’t automatically mean that your are guilty of the crime. There are many defenses and ways to challenge a DUI in Pennsylvania and I want to take some time and go through some of them.ILLEGAL STOP

The most common way to challenge a DUI is to argue that the actual stop of the motor vehicle was illegal in some way. Many times it is argued that the police did not have “probable cause” to stop the vehicle. There are many ways to prove that there was something wrong with the stop or that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to act accordingly. One such way which is to see if the officer had a dash cam video and if they did request it immediately. If for instance the officer claims that a motorist was pulled over because they were “weaving all over the road”, a video may be able to disprove this and have stop thrown out.

FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS

Published on: May 3, 2016

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Finds No Error in Admitting Defendant’s Prior DUI Conviction into Evidence

by Zachary B. Cooper, Attorney at Law, P.C.

Matthew Scott Diehl appealed from his 9 1/2 to 19 years’ sentence after a jury convicted him of various DUI-related charges, including homicide by vehicle while DUI and third-degree murder. Diehl contended the trial court erred when it allowed the state to introduce evidence of his 2005 DUI conviction and alcohol awareness classes as evidence of malice in support of the third-degree murder charge. The appeals court disagreed.

In the early morning hours of April 27, 2013, Fire Chief Rodney Miller of the Loganville Fire Department – the victim – was closing lanes of I-83 to allow for an emergency helicopter landing. To divert traffic, Chief Miller parked his truck diagonally across both lanes. The truck was equipped with oscillating emergency lights.