Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog
In Pennsylvania, a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) of a controlled substance does not require proof of the identity of the drug, chemical testing, or the presence of paraphernalia. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court demonstrates this principle, affirming a DUI conviction based solely on officers’ observations, field sobriety testing, and the defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood test. If you are charged with DUI involving controlled substances, it is crucial to understand that circumstantial evidence alone may suffice for a conviction, and you should promptly consult with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney.
Facts and Procedural History
It is reported that the defendant was pulled over by Pennsylvania State Troopers in the early hours of the morning for driving without headlights and weaving into oncoming traffic. The stop occurred in Bucks County near a Wawa parking lot, where the defendant eventually complied after initially failing to stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, troopers allegedly observed signs of impairment, including jittery behavior, glassy and bloodshot eyes, and delayed pupillary response. The defendant’s speech was described as overly talkative and tangential, and his responses to questions were rambling and inconsistent.
It is alleged that after obtaining the defendant’s documentation and conferring about their observations, the troopers asked him to exit the vehicle. The defendant refused repeatedly for several minutes before eventually complying. At that point, based on his demeanor and physical indicators, the troopers suspected impairment by a controlled substance and conducted field sobriety testing. According to the officers, the defendant showed multiple signs of impairment during the horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand tests. He stepped off the line, missed heel-to-toe contact, swayed, and used his arms for balance.
It is reported that an Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) evaluation was then administered, which further revealed signs of intoxication. The defendant failed the lack-of-convergence and modified Romberg balance tests, displaying dilated pupils, eyelid tremors, and an inability to estimate time accurately. He allegedly gave inconsistent statements about his travel plans and whereabouts and refused to consent to a chemical blood test after being advised of his rights. No controlled substances or paraphernalia were found on his person or in the vehicle, and he made no admission to drug use.
It is alleged that the defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2), which prohibits operating a vehicle under the influence of a drug to a degree that impairs safe driving. The defendant moved to suppress the field sobriety tests and challenged the legality of his arrest and refusal notation. The trial court denied the motion and found the defendant guilty after a stipulated bench trial. The defendant was sentenced to seventy-two hours to six months of incarceration and filed a nunc pro tunc appeal.
Evidence Sufficient to Sustain a DUI Conviction
It is reported that on appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was under the influence of a controlled substance, as no drug was identified and no chemical testing was performed. He also challenged the troopers’ reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety testing and the probable cause to arrest him.
The court rejected these arguments. The court reiterated that under Section 3802(d)(2), the Commonwealth need not prove the presence of a specific controlled substance. Rather, it must show that the defendant was impaired by a drug to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving. The court cited multiple precedents that held that expert testimony is not always required to establish drug impairment and that permit the consideration of chemical test refusal in evaluating impairment.
The court emphasized that the officers’ testimony about the defendant’s driving, demeanor, and performance on standardized field sobriety tests provided substantial circumstantial evidence of impairment. These included physical signs, such as dilated pupils, erratic behavior, and inability to follow instructions, along with behavioral indicators like nervousness, inconsistent answers, and confusion. The troopers’ conclusions were supported by their training and ARIDE evaluations. The court noted that field sobriety tests are widely accepted tools for evaluating impairment, and non-expert testimony is permissible to support a DUI conviction.
As to the suppression issue, the court held that the troopers had sufficient reasonable suspicion based on the defendant’s driving and appearance to request field sobriety tests. His poor performance on those tests and other observations gave rise to probable cause for arrest. The court found no error in the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion or in the sufficiency of the evidence, and it affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Consult a Skilled Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney Today
If you are facing DUI charges involving controlled substances or are considering an appeal following conviction, timely and informed legal advice is essential. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is a capable Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer with a strong background in trial and appellate representation. He is well-versed in the legal standards applicable to drug-related DUI cases and can help you assess the strength of the evidence against you. To schedule a confidential consultation, call Attorney Cooper at (215) 542-0800 or reach out via the online contact form.