Articles Posted in DUI Appeal

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

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

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

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