DUI Law Blog : DUI Lawyer & Attorney : Drunk Driving Defense & DWI News : Dan Jaffe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a new opinion issued on March 31, 2009 by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth court, a drivers license suspension was reversed because the officer could not establish that the person who had been arrested for DUI actually drove the vehicle, which he had left after an accident, after he had consumed the alcohol that caused his impairment.

Officer Brown could not reasonably conclude that Stahr was driving under the influence simply because he showed signs of intoxication when he exited the state trooper’s vehicle without further establishing the timeframe between the accident and the observed intoxication. No timeframe between the accident and arrest was established according to the evidence provided to the trial court. We cannot, therefore, conclude that Officer Brown had reasonable suspicion that Stahr was in control of his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Since there was no objective evidence to support Officer Brown’s suspicion that Stahr was driving under the influence, the order of the trial court is reversed, and Stahr’s operating privileges are reinstated. (Quoted from original opinion).

This is a good result and one that makes me hopeful that there is justice in the world this Wednesday morning.

It is not illegal to get drunk after an accident. The State, even in DUI cases, is supposed to have the burden of proof. Learn more about Pennsylvania DUI law and how PA DUI suspensions work.