Another Commonwealth Court decision, and Another Way to Keep Your License
This past Thursday, I was waiting for the elevator at the Criminal Justice Center, on my way to speak to my fellow Harvard alums about my recent run for Montgomery County District Attorney at the annual meeting of the Harvard Law School Association of Philadelphia. As usual, there was a long wait, and as usual, I started scrolling through my e-mails on my iPhone. Someone e-mailed me a new Commonwealth Court decision called Yourick vs. Bureau of Driver Licensing, and as I read it, I dropped my iPhone and missed the elevator: the Court had overturned PennDOT's decision to suspend someone's driver's license again, this time because the warning sheet issued by PennDOT was confusing.
As I have written before, if a police officer suspects that you have been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he can ask you to submit to a chemical (blood or breath) test. If you refuse, PennDOT automatically suspends your drivier's license for 1 year. You can delay the suspension by demanding a hearing in front of a judge, but the judge has only narrow grounds to prevent PennDOT from suspending your license. My conclusion in such a situation remains the same: DON'T REFUSE. SUBMIT TO THE TEST. It is easier to fight the test results in criminal court then it is to fight a refusal in civil court against PennDOT.
Nonetheless, the Yourick decision opens yet another possibility to keep your license after you refuse a chemical test. The Court ruled that the December 2006 version of the PennDOT warnings were confusing because they were unclear on whether you would lose your license if this was your first DUI offense. (You will lose your license for 1 year, even if it is your first refusal.) Ms. Yourick testified specifically that she read the warning sheet carefully, and decided to refuse the chemical test because it had been her first arrest for DUI. The Court ruled that the form was confusing and therefore did not provide the required warnings. The Court upheld the lower court's decision to let Ms. Yourick keep her license despite her refusal.
Like the other recent Commonwealth Court decision, this is narrow grounds for a successful appeal (the latest version of the form appears to have corrected this grammtical issue), and does not change my call to consent to the test. Again, though, it shows that attention to detail (even punctuation on a government form) lays the foundation for success.
As I have written before, if a police officer suspects that you have been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he can ask you to submit to a chemical (blood or breath) test. If you refuse, PennDOT automatically suspends your drivier's license for 1 year. You can delay the suspension by demanding a hearing in front of a judge, but the judge has only narrow grounds to prevent PennDOT from suspending your license. My conclusion in such a situation remains the same: DON'T REFUSE. SUBMIT TO THE TEST. It is easier to fight the test results in criminal court then it is to fight a refusal in civil court against PennDOT.
Nonetheless, the Yourick decision opens yet another possibility to keep your license after you refuse a chemical test. The Court ruled that the December 2006 version of the PennDOT warnings were confusing because they were unclear on whether you would lose your license if this was your first DUI offense. (You will lose your license for 1 year, even if it is your first refusal.) Ms. Yourick testified specifically that she read the warning sheet carefully, and decided to refuse the chemical test because it had been her first arrest for DUI. The Court ruled that the form was confusing and therefore did not provide the required warnings. The Court upheld the lower court's decision to let Ms. Yourick keep her license despite her refusal.
Like the other recent Commonwealth Court decision, this is narrow grounds for a successful appeal (the latest version of the form appears to have corrected this grammtical issue), and does not change my call to consent to the test. Again, though, it shows that attention to detail (even punctuation on a government form) lays the foundation for success.
