Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

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