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.
Grounds for Charging a Defendant with a DUI Crime
On appeal, the court focused on whether the police had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence. The court reiterated that to sustain a suspension under the Implied Consent Law, the DOT must prove that the driver was arrested for DUI based on reasonable grounds, was asked to submit to a chemical test, refused the test, and was warned about the consequences of refusal. The defendant only challenged the reasonableness of the grounds for his arrest.
The arresting officer’s testimony revealed that he responded to a speeding complaint, where a neighbor reported that the defendant was drunk and unsteady. Upon arrival at the defendant’s home shortly after, the officer observed the defendant’s glassy eyes, slurred speech, and unsteady balance. The defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and subsequently failed several field sobriety tests. He refused a portable breath test and, after being read the DL-26B Form, refused chemical testing.
In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the court emphasized that reasonable grounds do not require the same level of proof as probable cause for criminal prosecution. It found that the observations of the neighbor and the arresting officer provided a reasonable basis to conclude the defendant was driving under the influence. The court dismissed the defendant’s argument that the absence of an alcohol odor and other potential causes for his instability negated the reasonable grounds for his arrest.
The court also distinguished the case from Fierst v. Commonwealth, noting that unlike in Fierst, there was no evidence the defendant consumed alcohol between the neighbor’s and Officer Thomas’s observations. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the defendant’s license suspension for refusing chemical testing under the Implied Consent Law.
Meet with a Skilled Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you face DUI charges, it is wise to seek advice from an attorney to discuss your possible defenses. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer who can assess the details of your case and guide you on your options for achieving a positive result. You can contact him for a free and private consultation by filling out the online form or calling (215) 542-0800.