Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

Legislators, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and other interested parties have advocated for legislation mandating that all new vehicles come equipped with alcohol detecting devices to prevent people from driving while intoxicated for the past several years. The US House of Representatives recently enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that contains an Advanced Impaired Driving Technology (AIDT) provision that Mothers Against Drunk Driving described as the single most significant legislation passed in the organization’s forty-one-year history. While no one disputes the hazards of driving while impaired, mandatory alcohol monitors may infringe on people’s rights and cause a slew of other problems. If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania, it’s in your best interests to speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options.

The Proposed Technology

Allegedly, the AIDT section of the Act establishes a threshold that Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates will avoid nearly ten thousand drunk driving deaths each year. Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s President further stated that the law will basically eliminate the leading cause of mortality on America’s highways. She suggested that technology is required to prevent unsafe driving practices used by those who fail to make the correct decisions when it comes to getting behind the wheel after drinking.

The act provides that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must to undertake a process to establish rules and set a standard for impaired driving safety systems on all new vehicles within three years. NHTSA is anticipated to evaluate technology such as alcohol detection systems, which use sensors to determine whether a driver is intoxicated and, if so, stop their car from driving. Automobile makers will have two to three years to implement the safety standard once it is established. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Generally, the Pennsylvania courts must abide by statutory guidelines when sentencing people convicted of DUI crimes. As such, sentences that exceed the maximum penalties under the guidelines may be deemed unlawful. The court can consider aggravating factors when issuing sentences, however, and in some cases, such factors could result in an increased penalty, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a Pennsylvania DUI matter. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a dedicated Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to determine your rights.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI, which was his first offense. He pleaded guilty, and in exchange, the Commonwealth withdrew several other criminal charges and recommended a sentence in the low-end of the standard range. During the defendant’s colloquy, the court noted that the offense was graded as a first-degree misdemeanor, which was not typical for a first offense DUI, due to the fact that there was a minor in the car at the time of the defendant’s arrest.

Allegedly, the court further explained that the defendant could face up to five years imprisonment. The defendant confirmed that he understood and admitted to the elements of the crime, including the fact that a child under the age of two was in his car when he was arrested. The court sentenced the defendant to three years imprisonment. He went through numerous rounds of appeals, arguing in part that his sentence was illegal because it exceeded the maximum penalty for first-time offenses under the statutory guidelines. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, the penalties increase for each DUI crime a person is found guilty of committing. If a person charged with DUI accepts ARD, though, they may be able to successfully assert that a subsequent DUI crime should be charged as a first offense. This was demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania case in which the court rejected the Commonwealth’s arguments to the contrary. If you are accused of a DUI crime, it is smart to confer with a trusted Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding your potential defenses.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that in 2013, the defendant was charged with a DUI offense. He was accepted into the ARD program, which he completed in 2015. Then, in 2019, the defendant was charged with DUI second offense. He entered a guilty plea, but then the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling stating that absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a prior offense, prior acceptance of ARD could not be counted as a prior offense for purposes of DUI sentencing.

Allegedly, the defendant then filed a motion to quash the charge graded as a second offense. The trial issued an order directing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea but stated if he declined to do so, he would be sentenced as a first-time offender. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to provide it the opportunity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject charge was the defendant’s second DUI offense. Continue reading

Published on:

by

The law is not static but constantly changes and develops over time through the issuance of statutes or court rulings. In many cases, an intervening change in the law is grounds for overturning a prior conviction. For example, the United States Supreme Court’s relatively recent ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota changed the landscape of the prosecution of DUI matters in holding that a motorist cannot be considered to have consented to submit to a blood test due to the threat of criminal convictions. Not all post-conviction challenges that new rulings trigger will be granted, though and the denial of post-conviction relief will often be upheld, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania DUI ruling. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a skillful Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant struck a bus and two other vehicles while driving in the afternoon. One of the vehicles was thrown into pedestrians, causing them to suffer injuries. Police investigating the incident noticed that while the defendant did not smell of alcohol, he was incoherent because his speech was so slow and slurred, and he had bloodshot eyes. As such, they arrested the defendant and transported him to the hospital, where he was advised of his rights and the consequences of refusing to submit to a blood draw.

Allegedly, he consented to the test, which revealed he was under the influence of multiple narcotics. He was charged with DUI and other crimes and found guilty. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing his attorney was ineffective in that he failed to successfully argue for the suppression of the blood draw evidence, especially given the recent ruling in Birchfield. The court denied his petition, and he appealed, arguing that the court erred in issuing a denial without holding an evidentiary hearing. Continue reading

Published on:

by

When the police stop people for suspicion of DUI, it is often due to erratic driving. Thus, it is not uncommon for a person charged with a DUI crime to face charges for other offenses, like careless driving. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, a person must generally be tried for all crimes arising out of a single incident at one time, and if they are not, they may be able to get some of the charges against them dismissed. This was demonstrated recently in a Pennsylvania ruling in which the court ultimately dismissed DUI charges against a defendant, finding the Commonwealth was barred from prosecuting him under the compulsory joinder rule. If you are accused of a DUI crime, it is advisable to meet with a knowledgeable Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to determine your potential defenses.

The History of the Case

Reportedly, the police arrested the defendant during a traffic stop in Philadelphia and charged him with a misdemeanor DUI offense and a summary careless driving offense. The defendant pleaded guilty to the summary offense in January 2014, and in October 2014, proceeded to trial for the DUI charge. He was found guilty of DUI, after which he filed a motion for a trial de novo. He then moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to Pennsylvania’s compulsory joinder rule. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Compulsory Joinder in DUI Cases

On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because he was previously convicted for an offense that arose out of the same criminal episode as the DUI offense. The Commonwealth’s defense rested on the argument that the defendant waived his right to object to his DUI prosecution when he failed to assert the compulsory joinder defense at his initial DUI proceedings. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, if the Commonwealth charges a person with a DUI offense, it must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction. As such, if the Commonwealth can establish the intoxication of a DUI defendant but not that he or she actually operated a vehicle while impaired, the defendant should be found not guilty, as demonstrated in a recent ruling in which the court vacated the defendant’s conviction. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a skilled Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to discuss what defenses are available.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that a police officer performed a traffic stop at 3:30 in the morning when he noticed the defendant’s motorcycle behind a large tree. The defendant briefly spoke to the driver that the officer stopped, then went back behind the tree. The officer drove away but was then dispatched back to the same location following a report of an accident. When he arrived, he saw the defendant lying next to his motorcycle and tire marks on the grass but not the road.

Allegedly, the officer smelled alcohol on the defendant’s breath and asked him to submit to field sobriety testing. The defendant failed the first test and stated he could not perform the remaining tests due to a knee injury. The officer arrested the defendant for DUI, and a breath test revealed his BAC to be 0.11%. The trial court convicted the defendant, and he appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had operated a vehicle while intoxicated. Continue reading

Published on:

by

DUI convictions can result in substantial fines, jail time, and other penalties. Generally, the penalties increase with each DUI crime a person is convicted of committing. While the process of determining if a person has prior DUI offenses is typically straightforward, in some cases, a defendant may dispute whether a charge constitutes a second offense. For example, in a recent Pennsylvania case, a defendant argued that adjudication of DUI as a juvenile did not count as a prior offense for purposes of sentencing but failed to persuade the court. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is smart to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to discuss your potential penalties.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI – Controlled Substance, Impaired Ability. She entered a guilty plea pursuant to the advice of her attorney and was offered Accelerated Rehabilitated Disposition (ARD) as a first-time offender. The Commonwealth then amended the information to charge her as a second-time offender due to an adjudication of delinquency in 2011, rendering her ineligible for ARD. She was sentenced as a second offender, and her sentence included a term of probation.

Allegedly, the defendant subsequently violated the conditions of her probation, and the Commonwealth moved for a revocation hearing. She then filed a motion to determine the legality of her sentence, arguing that it was unlawful because her 2011 adjudication did not constitute a prior offense under Pennsylvania law.   Continue reading

Published on:

by

DUI arrests often arise out of traffic stops initiated due to erratic driving. While most people pull over when they see a police car with flashing lights or sirens, some people are unaware that they are being chased and continue driving. Although police are allowed to follow fleeing individuals, there are limits to what they can do to apprehend them in situations involving misdemeanors. The United States Supreme Court affirmed this in a recent ruling issued in a case in which the defendant was charged with a DUI following a warrantless arrest. If you are faced with charges that you committed a DUI crime, it is in your best interest to speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is alleged that the defendant was blaring his horn and listening to loud music while driving. He drove by a police officer, who immediately began following him. In an attempt to compel the defendant to stop, the officer turned on his overhead lights. The defendant kept driving, though, and eventually entered his garage. The officer stopped the defendant’s garage door from closing, stepped into the garage, and began interviewing the defendant. He noticed that the defendant smelled like he had been drinking alcohol and was acting inebriated.

According to reports, the police then asked the defendant to take field sobriety tests. The defendant performed poorly on the tests and was arrested for DWI. Lab tests revealed that his BAC was over three times the legal limit. The defendant asked for the evidence against him to be suppressed, claiming that it was obtained without a warrant, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The court refused his motion, and the case went to the Supreme Court following a series of appeals. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Not all Pennsylvania DUI charges arise out of traffic stops. Instead, in many instances, police officers will approach a person sitting in a parked vehicle for purposes other than investigating a crime and will ultimately determine the individual drove while intoxicated. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a person engaged in criminal activity in order to detain and question a person, though, and if they do not, it may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Recently, a Pennsylvania court issued an opinion that discussed what constitutes reasonable suspicion in a DUI case in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are accused of committing a DUI crime, it is prudent to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding your rights.

The Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, a police officer was dispatched to a residential neighborhood due to reports of a suspicious car. When he arrived, he found the defendant asleep behind the wheel of his parked car. The car, which was running, was parked legally. The officer parked his patrol car directly behind the defendant’s vehicle and approached the defendant’s window. The defendant awoke, and the officer asked him if he was okay. When the defendant responded, the officer noted an odor of alcohol and that the defendant had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes.

Reportedly, the defendant admitted he was drinking the night before and stated he did not know how he arrives at his current location. A second officer arrived and questioned the defendant. The police ultimately asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety testing. He complied and performed poorly on the tests. He was then arrested and charged with DUI. He moved to suppress the evidence against him on the grounds the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. His motion was denied, and he was convicted, after which he filed an appeal. Continue reading

Published on:

by

While most people are aware that they can be charged with DUI crimes for driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08% or higher, many are unaware that in Pennsylvania, DUIs are categorized by alcohol levels. As such, people who have higher blood alcohol levels at the time of their arrests face more significant penalties. In a recent Pennsylvania ruling, a court discussed what evidence is needed to establish a defendant’s guilt for DUI at the highest rate of alcohol, in a case in which the defendant argued the Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence to convict him. If you are accused of a DUI offense, you should confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assess your options for seeking a fair outcome.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that police officers were positioned in the parking lot of a convenience store around the time bars let out. They noticed a car that was parked outside of the dedicated lines, and when they approached the vehicle, they observed the defendant slumped over in the driver’s seat. One of the officers shook the defendant to wake him and noted the defendant smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech.

Allegedly, when the officers questioned the defendant, it took him several attempts to state his address. He admitted consuming alcohol, and his keys were in the ignition of his vehicle. Based on the foregoing, the officers asked him to submit to field sobriety testing, which he failed. He was arrested, and a blood test revealed his blood-alcohol level to be .211%. He was charged with DUI – highest rate of alcohol and convicted following a bench trial. He then appealed. Continue reading