Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania DUI cases, the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt. Generally, to do so the Commonwealth must introduce testimony from a live witness regarding the results of any chemical testing. They can rely on a written report in lieu of such testimony, unless the defendant objects. If the defendant delays in filing an objection, though, they may waive the right to do so, as explained in a recent Pennsylvania case. If you are accused of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating substances, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by a police officer for driving with a suspended vehicle registration. Upon contact, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant and observed signs of impairment, such as slowed speech. Consequently, the officer conducted standard field sobriety tests, which indicated impairment. Based on these observations, the defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) and transported to a hospital for a blood draw.

It is alleged that the subsequent laboratory results confirmed the presence of THC and Delta-9 carboxy THC in his system. Initially charged with DUI-related offenses, the charges were later refined during legal proceedings. After several procedural motions and a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI charges. The defendant ultimately appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the laboratory report. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pennsylvania, like most states, increases the penalty imposed on people found guilty of DUI with each subsequent conviction. Until recently, DUI charges that were resolved via ARD did not count as prior offenses for the purposes of DUI crimes. As discussed in a recent Pennsylvania opinion, though, the law has since changed. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated, it is sensible to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in a collision and subsequently arrested after failing field sobriety tests. Chemical testing revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.188%. The Commonwealth charged him with multiple offenses, including DUI-Highest Rate and Recklessly Endangering Another Person (REAP). He pled guilty to DUI-Highest Rate and REAP in exchange for the dismissal of other charges, with a recommendation for sentencing according to Pennsylvania guidelines.

It is reported that at the time of the plea, legal precedent prohibited the courts from considering a DUI resolved through ARD as a prior offense. However, by the time of sentencing, that precedent had been overruled. Consequently, on January 9, 2023, the court sentenced the defendant to the mandatory minimum of 90 days’ incarceration for DUI-Highest Rate, treating it as a second offense, and imposed a term for the REAP conviction. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion, claiming the court erred in its classification and sentencing. The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, penalties for driving under the influence increase for second and subsequent convictions. While in many cases it is clear whether an offense constitutes a person’s first or second DUI offense, in some, such as in cases involving Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, it is less clear. The confusion over calculating whether a DUI charge is a second or subsequent offense was recently compounded by an intervening change in the law which was followed by a subsequent reversal shortly thereafter, as discussed in a recent ruling issued in a Pennsylvania DUI case. If you are accused of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating substance in violation of Pennsylvania law, it is in your best interest to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the Commonwealth charged the defendant with a DUI, which it characterized as his second offense, despite a prior Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in 2017 for a previous DUI offense. The defendant filed a motion to reduce the grading of his DUI charges to a first offense, citing a previous court decision, Commonwealth v. Chichkin, which declared that Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition acceptance could not be considered a “prior conviction” for DUI sentencing enhancements.

It is reported, however, the trial court stayed the case pending the resolution of subsequent decisions overruling Chichkin. Following the en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Richards, which reversed Chichkin, the defendant’s case proceeded to trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of driving under the influence of controlled substances and related offenses, and the court imposed a judgment of sentence. The defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, while motorists suspected of DUI are deemed to consent to breath tests pursuant to the implied consent law, they must provide express consent to submit to a blood test. Such consent must be voluntary and informed, however. If it is not, and a test is administered regardless, there may be grounds for suppressing the results of the test. Recently, in a Pennsylvania DUI case in which the defendant argued his consent to submit to a blood test was not valid due to language barriers, the court explained the grounds for suppressing blood test results. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in Pennsylvania, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer.

Factual and Procedural Setting of the Case

It is reported that in January 2020, the defendant was involved in a car accident in which he rear-ended a bus at a railroad crossing. A police officer arrived at the scene, and his dashboard camera recorded the interaction. The officer questioned the defendant, who, despite having difficulty understanding English, provided information about the incident. Despite the officer’s persistent questioning about alcohol consumption, the defendant denied drinking.

Allegedly, the defendant, who is from Russia, presented an international driving permit when asked for his license and explained why he didn’t have a Pennsylvania license. After performing poorly on field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. The defendant consented to a blood test, and the results showed a high level of alcohol in his blood. At trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI and sentenced to probation. He then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

Under recent changes in Pennsylvania law, people can consume marijuana for medical purposes in certain circumstances. They can nonetheless be charged with marijuana-related DUI crimes if they drive while under the influence of marijuana, though. Thus, as discussed in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a DUI case, the smell of marijuana can be a factor in determining whether probable cause exists for questioning a DUI suspect. If you are charged with a DUI offense, you should talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what arguments you may be able to set forth in your defense.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in August 2021, a police officer observed the defendant driving at 77 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone on a state highway. The officer, after stopping the defendant, detected a strong odor of burnt and raw marijuana, leading to further investigation. The defendant, who possessed a medical marijuana card, admitted to smoking marijuana prior to the stop. Subsequent field sobriety tests revealed impairment, and the defendant was arrested, leading to a blood draw at a hospital.

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with two counts of driving under the influence (DUI) of a controlled substance and one count of exceeding maximum speed limits. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the evidence obtained following the traffic stop, challenging the lawfulness of the police officer’s actions leading to the arrest. The trial court denied his motion, and he was subsequently convicted and sentenced. He then appealed the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. Continue reading

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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