Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

If the police suspect that a person is driving under the influence of alcohol, they will typically detain them and conduct an investigation. The police do not have the authority to stop people without reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime, though, and if they do, any evidence obtained during the stop may be inadmissible. In a recent Pennsylvania ruling issued in a DUI case, the court explained the differences between a mere encounter and an investigatory stop, ultimately rejecting the defendant’s argument that the stop in question was unlawful. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to consult a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assess your potential defenses.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with multiple DUI crimes. The charges arose out of an encounter in which a police officer observed that she appeared lethargic and had a distant gaze while driving, followed her, and approached her after she parked and exited her car. They engaged in a conversation, and the officer immediately detected the strong smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath.

It is reported that the defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests and underwent a blood draw, which revealed a BAC that was three times over the legal limit. Following her charges, the defendant filed a motion asserting that the traffic stop was unlawful and sought to suppress any evidence obtained from it. The trial court denied her motion, and a trial was held on stipulated facts. She was found guilty, and she appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

People charged with DUI offenses in Pennsylvania may be able to avoid a conviction and sentence by entering into an ARD program. While ARD is a pretrial disposition, people admitted to ARD nonetheless have to abide by certain conditions, and if they do not, they may be removed from the program. As discussed in a recent Pennsylvania ruling, however, if a court denies the Commonwealth’s motion to remove an ARD participant, the Commonwealth most likely cannot appeal the ruling. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is wise to speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to determine what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in October 2020, the defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol after colliding with an electric pole and leaving the scene to call emergency services. In June 2021, she was accepted into an ARD program. In March 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to terminate her admission into the program, alleging that she had tested positive for alcohol consumption in December 2021, violating the terms of her ARD supervision.

Reportedly, the trial court found her in violation of the program but denied the Commonwealth’s request to terminate her participation and instead added an additional 90 days to her term of ARD supervision. The Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court was required to terminate her participation in the ARD program, but the trial court denied the motion. The Commonwealth then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, people charged with DUI offenses will often assert their innocence. In some instances, though, they will plead nolo contendere, or no contest, meaning that they do not expressly admit guilt but agree to accept punishment. A plea of nolo contendere should not be entered into without careful consideration, however, as once such a plea is entered, it can be challenging to withdraw, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania DUI case. If you are accused of committing a DUI crime, it is smart to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options for protecting your interests.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the police received a dispatch about a vehicle striking a pedestrian. When the police arrived at the accident scene, they observed a man on the ground with substantial injuries. Bystanders advised the police that a man driving a white SUV hit two stop signs and then struck the victim and provided the police with the SUV’s license plate number.

Allegedly, the police patrolled the area and found the SUV involved in the accident, which belonged to the defendant. They learned that the defendant discarded a pill bottle containing benzodiazepines and smelled marijuana inside the SUV. The defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with multiple DUI offenses. He entered a plea of nolo contendere, and the trial court sentenced him to four to eight years of imprisonment. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. He then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Drivers the cause fatal collisions while they are intoxicated typically are not only charged with DUI crimes but also with more serious offenses, including aggravated assault and third-degree murder. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt for such crimes, and as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania DUI case, it can be challenging for it to do so, as it requires proof that the defendant acted with malice. If you are charged with causing a DUI collision, it is in your best interest to speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what defenses you may be able to assert as soon as possible.

The Subject Accident

It is alleged that in December 2019, multiple cars were made to the police about a white SUV that was speeding and driving erratically on I-95. Shortly thereafter, police and an ambulance arrived on the scene of an accident between the defendant, who was driving a white SUV that matched the description of the vehicle in the calls made to police, and a van. The van was engulfed in flames.

Reportedly, two of the men in the van were able to extract themselves and seek medical treatment, while the other two died from their injuries. Chemical testing revealed the defendant’s BAC to be .151 percent at the time of the crash. He was charged with third-degree murder, aggravated assault-serious bodily injury, multiple DUI crimes, and other offenses. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania DUI cases, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution is unable to offer evidence sufficient to meet this burden, the trier of fact should find the defendant not guilty. In some DUI cases, though, the judge or jury will issue a verdict that does not align with the evidence. Fortunately, defendants who believe they were unjustly convicted of DUI offenses can pursue appeals. They must develop compelling arguments on appeal; however, otherwise, the court will most likely decline to reverse their guilty verdict, as shown in a recent Pennsylvania ruling. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is advisable to retain a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to assist you in protecting your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the police responded to a 911 call reporting reckless driving. When the police officer arrived at the parking lot where the call indicated the driver was located, he observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of his parked car. There were no other cars in the lot. The defendant spoke with the defendant, who had a strong odor of alcohol and exhibited signs of intoxication.

It is reported that the defendant refused to submit to a breath test or field sobriety testing. He was arrested and charged with DUI general impairment. Following a bench trial, the judge convicted him as charged. The defendant appealed, arguing that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In many cases in which a person is charged with DUI offenses in Pennsylvania, the prosecution will use evidence of the person’s BAC to establish their guilt. A BAC level over the legal limit is not needed to convict someone of a DUI crime, though; instead, they can be found guilty if the prosecution sets forth evidence of their general impairment. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed what constitutes adequate proof of general impairment in a case in which the defendant appealed his DUI conviction. If you are faced with DUI charges, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to assert.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Charges

It is alleged that a police officer began to follow the defendant’s vehicle after the defendant made an illegal left turn. The officer saw the defendant drive over the fog line and veer to the right side of the road multiple times; as such, he pulled the defendant over. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his speech was slurred.

It is reported that the defendant submitted to field sobriety tests but refused to submit to blood or breath tests. The defendant was charged with DUI general impairment, and following a non-jury trial, he was convicted. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, people convicted of DUI offenses face more severe penalties if it is their second or subsequent DUI conviction. While this has long been the case, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code was recently amended to increase the penalties imposed on repeat DUI offenders. Known as Deana’s Law, the amendment was signed into law in July 2022 but did not go into effect until November 2022. If you are charged with a second or subsequent DUI offense, it is important to know what penalties you may face if you are convicted, and you should speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Changes to the DUI Provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code

Act 59 of 2022, sometimes referred to as Deanna’s law, amended section 3803 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code to increase the grading of certain DUI offenses, subsequently allowing for the imposition of greater penalties for such violations. Act 59 of 2022 was named Deanna’s law in honor of Deana DeRosa Eckman of Delaware County, who was killed by an intoxicated motorist with six prior DUI convictions.

Pursuant to the modifications, the following offenses will be charged as a felony of the third degree if the defendant has two prior DUI convictions and a felony of the second degree if the defendant has three or more DUI offenses: DUI general impairment, if the defendant refused to submit to a breath or chemical test; DUI with a BAC of .16 or higher; and, DUI involving controlled substances. Notably, Felonies of the third degree are punishable by up to seven years in prison, and felonies of the second degree are punishable by up to ten years in prison. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pennsylvania’s statutory sentencing scheme for DUI offenses permits the courts to impose greater penalties for each subsequent DUI conviction. Generally, it is easy to ascertain whether a conviction constitutes a first, second, or third offense. The issue can become convoluted, however, when a defendant faced with DUI charges was previously charged with a DUI crime and entered into an ARD program but was not actually convicted. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling addressing the novel question of whether prior acceptance of ARD equates to a prior conviction for purposes of imposing sentences for second or subsequent DUI crimes, ultimately ruling that it did. If you are charged with a second or higher DUI offense, you could face substantial penalties if you are found guilty, and it is critical to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options for protecting your liberties.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI crimes in July 2019. He was subsequently arrested and charged with a second DUI offense the following month. In February 2020, the defendant entered the ARD program for the charges arising out of his first arrest and then entered a negotiated guilty plea for the charges arising out of his second arrest.

Reportedly, the court deferred sentencing in the second case. Before the sentence was imposed, however, the court ruled that the provisions in the DUI law that equated accepted into ARD to a prior conviction for sentencing purposes were unconstitutional. The court sentenced the defendant as a first time offender, after which the Commonwealth appealed.   Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania’s DUI laws, it is unlawful for anyone to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance. Controlled substances include not only drugs that were obtained illegally but also medications that were lawfully prescribed by a physician. In other words, simply because a motorist’s use of a controlled substance is lawful does not mean that they cannot be found guilty of DUI while driving under the influence of that substance. This was clarified in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a case in which the court rejected the defendant’s argument that medical marijuana differed from marijuana in that it was not a controlled substance. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about your possible defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that an officer observed the defendant driving erratically. As such, the officer pulled the defendant over and began to question him. The defendant submitted to field tests which indicated to the officer that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance. As such, the officer arrested the defendant for suspicion of DUI.

Reportedly, a subsequent blood test indicated that the defendant had marijuana compounds and the metabolites of such compounds in his system. He was charged with driving while under the influence of a controlled substance and, following a trial, was found guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that medical marijuana was not a controlled substance. Continue reading

Published on:

by

A conviction for a DUI crime does more than just show up on your driving record; it is a criminal conviction that can result in a lengthy prison sentence. While the Pennsylvania courts have some degree of discretion in determining what constitutes an appropriate sentence in a DUI case, the sentences they issue must be reasonable; if they are not, they may be appealable. Recently, a Pennsylvania court issued a ruling discussing what constitutes a reasonable sentence in a DUI case, in a matter in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s request to vacate his sentence. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is prudent to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI crimes on three separate occasions within the span of 13 months. He pleaded guilty in all three cases and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 69 months and 270 days to 192 months and 270 days, which included consecutive 90 day sentences for driving while his license was suspended. He filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. He then appealed.

Demonstrating a DUI Sentence Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing such a lengthy sentence. Before addressing the defendant’s specific challenges to his sentences, the court examined whether his sentences were lawful, noting that it had the authority to address illegal sentences on its own accord. Continue reading