Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog

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

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

People involved in fatal DUI collisions will often be charged with numerous crimes. In order to establish their guilt, the Commonwealth generally must only prove their conduct was the cause of the fatal crash. As discussed in a recent Pennsylvania case, the actions of the victims of the crash do not impact the defendant’s guilt. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer regarding your possible defenses.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that in November 2018, the defendant attended a gathering, smoked marijuana, and later consumed alcohol and cocaine with the decedent. Afterward, the defendant agreed to drive the decedent home. While driving at an excessive speed of 93.2 mph in a 50 mph zone, the defendant crashed into a disabled tractor-trailer, killing the decedent and severely injuring himself. The defendant’s toxicology report revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.19 percent, and he claimed memory loss after his first drink.

Reportedly, the Commonwealth charged the defendant with multiple offenses, including Involuntary Manslaughter and DUI. After a jury trial in July 2022, the defendant was convicted of Homicide by Vehicle while DUI, Homicide by Vehicle, and DUI. He then appealed. Continue reading

Most DUI arrests in Pennsylvania arise out of traffic stops. Law enforcement agents can only stop and question motorists for certain reasons, however, and if they surpass the scope of their authority, the stop may be illegal, and any evidence obtained during the stop may arguably be inadmissible. Recently, a Pennsylvania court assessed the reasonableness of a stop that led to a DUI arrest in a case in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. If you are charged with a DUI offense, you should meet a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

Case History

It is reported that a police officer noticed the defendant operating a pickup truck without an inspection sticker. The officer approached the vehicle in the defendant’s driveway, inquiring about the inspection sticker. The defendant admitted that the vehicle was not registered, his license was suspended, and he had no insurance. The officer asked for paperwork, and when checking the VIN, he detected alcohol on the defendant’s breath, leading to field sobriety tests, the defendant’s arrest, and a blood test indicating a blood alcohol content of 0.169.

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with a DUI offense. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during his discussion with the officer, arguing that the officer opened the driver’s side door without permission. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue reading

The Constitution protects criminal defendants from self-incrimination, meaning they cannot be forced to make statements that could incriminate them. In many cases, even if a defendant makes statements suggesting guilt, those statements may be excluded from trial if the defendant was not properly informed of their rights before making them. The recent discussion of the standards for excluding incriminating statements came up in a Pennsylvania DUI case where the defendant was moved to suppress statements made before receiving a Miranda warning. If you’re facing DUI charges and have spoken to the police during their investigation, it’s advisable to consult with an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to explore potential defenses that could help you avoid a conviction.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that in September 2021, a police officer was conducting speed enforcement. He spotted a silver SUV traveling at 85 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone and initiated a traffic stop. The driver of the SUV, the defendant, complied with the stop. The officer noticed a strong smell of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle and inquired if the defendant had recently smoked, to which the defendant admitted he had smoked marijuana about 45 minutes before being stopped. A subsequent check revealed that the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. Suspecting the defendant might be under the influence, the officer asked him to perform field sobriety tests, which showed signs of impairment.

It is reported that the defendant was charged with DUI. He filed a pretrial motion seeking suppression of his admission to marijuana use and subsequent blood test results, arguing that his rights under Miranda were violated as the purpose of the traffic stop had concluded. The trial court granted the suppression motion, concluding that the defendant was in custody at the time of the questioning, and thus, Miranda warnings were required. The Commonwealth appealed. Continue reading

In many DUI cases, the Commonwealth will rely on direct evidence, like the results of a blood or breath test, to demonstrate that the defendant committed the charged offense. If such evidence is obtained during a traffic stop made without reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed a crime, however, it may not be admissible. Recently, a Pennsylvania court examined what is considered reasonable cause to effectuate a DUI traffic stop in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction after the lower court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained prior to his arrest. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is smart to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to talk about your options for seeking a good outcome.

History of the Case

It is alleged that an officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle based on an anonymous tip that the driver had committed an assault. At the scene, the officer observed the defendant’s car swerving erratically in a parking lot before stopping behind the patrol vehicle. During the traffic stop, the defendant appeared disoriented—staring straight ahead with glazed eyes and not responding to questions. When he exited the car, the defendant stumbled and gave delayed, slurred responses. He also advised the officer that he was a diabetic.

It is reported that the officer testified the defendant’s behaviors were consistent with impairment based on his extensive DUI enforcement experience. The defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained during his traffic stop on the grounds that the office lacked reasonable grounds for stopping and questioning him. The municipal court denied his motion, and he was convicted. He then appealed. Continue reading

Many people know that they can be charged with DUI offenses in Pennsylvania for driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or higher. They may not know, however, that they can also be convicted of DUI for operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol to the point of impairment, regardless of their blood alcohol level. Establishing guilt for general impairment DUI crimes usually requires the prosecution to rely on circumstantial evidence. In a recent Pennsylvania opinion, the court looked at what constitutes sufficient proof of general impairment. If you are accused of committing a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer at your earliest convenience.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that revealed that in an officer responded to a two-vehicle accident. At the scene, she observed the defendant standing outside a damaged silver vehicle with a broken rear passenger taillight and missing pieces of the taillight scattered on the street. The officer observed that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and an unsteady gait and noted the smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath. The defendant admitted to drinking that night and trying to pull onto the street from a parked position when the other driver collided with her vehicle.

Allegedly, the defendant submitted to field sobriety tests, which she failed. She consented to a blood test, which indicated a BAC of .161%, more than twice the legal limit of .08%. Based on this evidence, she was charged with DUI general impairment. She was convicted, after which she appealed. Continue reading

Under Pennsylvania law, law enforcement agents must have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to detain and interrogate someone. The reasonable suspicion standard does not mean that a person cannot be arrested for a DUI offense outside of a traffic stop, however. Instead, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania ruling, evidence obtained while a police officer is performing community caretaking duties can serve as a basis for a DUI arrest and conviction. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is smart to speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about your options for seeking a just outcome.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is alleged that in November 2019, a Pennsylvania state trooper observed the defendant’s vehicle on the side of the road. The trooper approached the vehicle and spoke to the defendant, at which point noticed the defendant’s glassy and bloodshot eyes, along with a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle and the defendant himself. The defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol when questioned by the Trooper and was asked to perform field sobriety tests.

It is reported that the defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with driving under the influence. He filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from what he argued was an illegal seizure. Specifically, he claimed that the activation of police lights and the approach of the troopers constituted an investigative detention without reasonable suspicion. The court, however, determined that the Trooper’s actions fell within the community caretaking doctrine and denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant was convicted following a bench hearing. He appealed. Continue reading