Lebanon Pennsylvania DUI Patrol Update
According the the Lebanon Daily News, the police at Jonestown, PA, stopped 35 people as part of a DUI patrol and arrested three of them. That is fewer than 10 percent of the people they stopped. What does this mean?
Either the patrol was very focused in the people they pulled over OR if they pulled people over at random, then it would appear that 8.5 percent of the people in Jonestown were driving around with enough alcohol or drugs in their systems to get arrested for DUI.
Could this be indicative of the general population?
I have heard stats quoted as high as 25% of people on the road at 2am are legally under the influence of something, so 8.5% really doesn't seem that high, does it?
Pennsylvania DUI arrests increased in 2008
The number of Pennsylvania DUI arrests increased between 2007 and 2008. The increase is being attributed to a stepped-up enforcement.
LancasterOnline.com:News:DUI arrests in state rise in '08: "If you're planning to drink and drive, beware: There's a good chance you'll be caught.
State police have announced they made a record number of DUI arrests in 2008, nabbing 16,156 motorists who were driving under the influence.
That is a 3 percent increase from 2007, when police arrested 15,654 drivers.
'We've put a bigger focus on enforcement,' said Jack J. Lewis, state police press secretary. 'We don't think drinking and driving has risen. But it's like with speeding. When we put more emphasis on the problem, the numbers of arrests go up.'
DUI arrests include motorists under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol.
In Lancaster County, state police DUI arrests in 2008 totaled an even 600; 441 by troopers operating out of the main barracks in Lancaster, and 159 by those out of Ephrata."
In reality, a very small percentage of people who drive while impaired ever get caught. Smartly increasing enforcement should drive the arrest numbers up in any state, all things being equal.
Pennsylvania DUI arrests: What these people have in common
Here's a list of some unfortunate people who happened to get arrested for a Pennsylvania DUI and have their names published in the below-referenced publication. Look through each of these names and the blurbs describing their arrest, and see if you can pick out a common theme.
The question is: What do each of the people named in the quote below have in common (besides obviously being arrested for impaired driving)?
Hilltown DUI log - The ReporterNews: Serving North Penn, Indian Valley and neighboring communities: "The following people recently were arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. In Pennsylvania, you are considered legally drunk if your blood-alcohol content is 0.08 p
JAN. 1: HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP — John Vandevander, 42, of the 100 block of Spruce Lane, Perkasie, was charged with DUI after he was stopped for erratic driving on Bethlehem pIke in the area of Keystone Drive, police said.
JAN. 24: HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP — Lydia A. Smith, 27, of the 700 block of Jefferson Street, Red Hill, was charged with DUI after police investigated a traffic accident in the 1100 block of Church Road, police said.
JAN. 28: HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP — David DeCarme, 38, of the 300 block of Cambridge Circle, Harleysville, was charged with DUI after he was stopped on Bethlehem Pike in the area of Hilltown Pike by an officer who was familiar with DeCarme and knew his license was suspended, police said.
FEB. 14: HILTTOWN TOWSHIP — Atem Angok, 22, of the 800 block of Poplar Street, Perkasie, was charged with DUI and hit and run after police were called to the area of Route 309 and Route 113 for the report of a hit and run, police said.
FEB. 15: HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP — Taressa Mattix, 27, of the 5700 block of Old Easton Road, Plumsteadville, was charged with DUI after her vehicle was stopped for erratic driving, police said.
FEB. 25: HILTTOWN TOWSHIP — Douglas S. Luber, 18, of the of the 4300 block of South Park Road in Ottsville was charged with DUI after police stopped his car for moving violations on Route 113 in the area of Keystone Drive , police said.
FEB. 27: HILTTOWN TOWSHIP — Kenneth F. Baker, 40, of the 2300 block of Charles Lane in Jamsion was charged with DUI after police stopped his car for a vehicle equipment violation on Route 113 at Route 152, police said.
MARCH 1: HILTTOWN TOWSHIP — Jennifer R. McCray, 30, of the 500 block of Washington Street in Royersford was charged with DUI after police were called to the Hilltown Crossing Shopping Center for the report of a female slumped over the steering wheel of a vehicle, police said.
MARCH 21: HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP — Brian Hastings, 29, of the 200 block of Hampshire Drive, Perkasie, was charge with DUI after police investigated a report of a vehicle driving with a flat tire on Hilltown Pike in the area of Diamond Street, police said."
The answer: Each and every person named above is innocent unless proven guilty in criminal court. Reporters, judges and prosecutors sometimes forget that the presumption of innocence applies to drunk driving cases. It is good the check ourselves and remember this from time to time.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) Case: PA DUI Update
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.
Pennsylvania DUI Ignition Interlock proposal gains steam
Here's another take on the new proposed Pennsylvania ignition interlock device proposal, which would change PA DUI law to mandate the installation of a breath test device on even first offenders' vehicles.
Pa. Lawmakers Weigh DUI Crackdown - Pittsburgh News Story - WTAE Pittsburgh:HARRISBURG -- Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering an increased use of ignition interlocks to help curb the state's drunk drivers.
Ignition interlocks prevent a car from starting if the driver's blood-alcohol level is above the legal limit and are currently used for Pennsylvania DUI offenders with multiple convictions.
The new measure would include first time offenders as well.
On Wednesday, the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee heard testimony on the pros and cons of using the device on first time offenders.
Opponents argued judges should be granted the discretion to make the decision on a case-to-case basis.
Supporters said most first time offenders are not first time drinkers, and the law should apply to them too.
State police average 15,000 drunk driving arrests per year."
Here is a summary of the current Pennsylvania ignition interlock device law. Changing it would bring it in line with Arizona DUI law and New Mexico DUI Law.
Pennsylvania ignition interlock bill gains steam
Pennsylvania DUI update. Looks like the movement to mandate the installation of ignition interlock devices for first offense Pennsylvania DUI convictions is gaining steam again.
LancasterOnline.com:News:Pa. bill would toughen DUI laws:
"Lawmakers in Harrisburg are trying again to change DUI laws so first-time offenders would have ignition-interlock devices installed in their vehicles.
Ignition-interlock devices require a driver to blow into an alcohol sensor when starting the car. If the device senses the driver's blood-alcohol content is too high, the car won't start.
State law says interlocks can be imposed after a second DUI, not a first conviction, according to state Rep. Paul Clymer, a Bucks County Republican who's looking to amend the law.
Clymer submitted a bill March 19 that would allow ignition-interlock devices to be installed on a first DUI conviction. The bill has one Lancaster County co-sponsor, GOP state Rep. Tom Creighton of Rapho Township.
'I think when people have a drinking problem, they lose the ability to make rational decisions,' Creighton said Monday. 'As a safeguard, this makes them jump through some hoops before they can drive.'
Clymer said he was inspired by a letter from a Quakertown High School student who asked for such legislation.
'I agree that installation of these devices has proven to be a relatively simple way of ensuring that those individuals who are convicted of drunk driving are prevented from repeating a potentially deadly mistake,' Clymer said in a news release. 'Why are we waiting for these individuals to be convicted a second time to implement this precaution?'
A similar bill was introduced in January 2008, but because it was not passed by the end of the 2007-08 legislative session, the proposal had to be reintroduced."
Learn more about Pennsylvania DUI law.
New Pennsylvania DUI refusal suspension case
In a new Pennsylvania DUI case, decided on January 7, 2009, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the 18 month suspension of a driver accused of DUI.
The case is William SCHLAG v PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, and it goes through an analysis of what the DOT must show in a DUI refusal hearing.
Quotes from the opinion:
As to the merits, we note, to sustain a suspension of operating privileges under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, PennDOT must establish a licensee: (1) was arrested for DUI by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe the licensee was operating or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned refusal might result in a license suspension. Banner v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 737 A.2d 1203 (1999).
As to the merits, we note, to sustain a suspension of operating privileges under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, PennDOT must establish a licensee: (1) was arrested for DUI by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe the licensee was operating or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned refusal might result in a license suspension. Banner v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 737 A.2d 1203 (1999).
Comments:
Nothing noteworthy about this opinion except it gives a good outline of what Pennsylvania courts will consider in regards to refusal hearings. It shows how much power and discretion the average Pennsylvania police officer has over a citizen accused of DUI, and how difficult it is to save a drivers license from PennDOT even if you were not the driver of the vehicle, when an officer alleges you refused the DUI chemical test.
Complex DUI license issues
One of the most frustrating parts of dealing with DUI and vehicular cases is the cross-over collateral issues with the Motor Vehicles Department. This new case out of Pennsylvania illustrates the complex interplay of criminal and civil licensing issues.
Excerpts (I highly suggest that you read the whole opinion in this case to get the full import of the complexity of the interplay):
Finally, Licensee's argument that he was not sentenced under the proper section of the Vehicle Code, must be heard on an appeal from his underlying criminal conviction, not before this Court. Licensees may not collaterally attack an underlying criminal conviction during a civil license suspension proceeding. Commonwealth v. Duffey, 536 Pa. 436, 639 A.2d 1174 (1994). Thus, PennDOT properly imposed a one-year suspension of Licensee's operating privileges because competent, unrebutted evidence established Licensee was not sentenced under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(a)(1) and therefore was not entitled to the "no-suspension exception."
Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision sustaining the one-year suspension of Licensee's operating privileges.
Analysis: DUI cases are extremely complex. The interplay of civil licensing issues and criminal penalties means that the practitioner must constantly keep on top of new developments in DUI law.
Drug DUI Case: Urine quantification not necessary
In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth need not show a quantity of illegal drugs in a person’s blood to admit a urine sample against them in a prosecution for drug related DUI.
The Cite: Commonwealth v. Williamson, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Filed December 2, 2008.
Quotes from the opinion:
Prior to trial the lower court suppressed the results of Williamson's post-arrest urine test because the toxicologist's report did not state the amount of the drug found in her blood. The trial court found that 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547, a statute that discusses the admissibility of chemical tests in section 3802 prosecutions, created a mandatory requirement that chemical test reports express an "amount" of "alcohol or controlled substance" appearing in the defendant's blood in order for such results to be admissible in this section 3802 case. Specifically, the trial judge held that since the introductory paragraph of subsection 1547(c) [FN5] includes the language, "the amount of alcohol or controlled substance in the defendant's blood," then if the amount of the controlled substance is not contained in a report, that report is inadmissible.
First, the purpose of subsection 1547(c) is to outline the approved procedures and equipment (including qualified personnel, licensed laboratories and facilities) used for chemical testing of a person's breath, blood, or urine for relevant summary and criminal proceedings. Here, Williamson did not challenge the admission of the toxicologist's report on any of these bases. Second, in order to convict a defendant for the offense for which Williamson was charged, the Commonwealth does not need to prove or show the amount of the controlled substance involved in the prosecution. Rather, the offense only requires proof that the defendant was under the influence to a degree that causes impairment. Therefore, because the specific quantity or amount of the drug in the defendant's system is not an element of the offense, section 1547 is not even applicable to the instant case. Thus, we reverse and remand.
My Analysis: Some states don’t even require that the prosecutor even prove that the person was under the influence of an illegal drug. Some states drug related DUI law requires only that the state show the mere presence of the illegal drug, or even its metabolite. They don’t even need to show that the drug was active at the time of driving to get a conviction.
That is because it is extremely hard to quantify drug-related impairment in DUI cases.
The logic of this ruling based on the Pennsylvania DUI statute makes sense. The state would simply need to prove impairment through another means (such as a drug recognition evaluation) after the urine sample shows the presence of the illegal drug.
