Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Tillitt
Decision Date | 14 February 1980 |
Citation | 411 A.2d 276,49 Pa.Cmwlth. 343 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, Appellant, v. Scott W. TILLITT, Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Robert R. Graff, Mohan & Graff, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before CRUMLISH, Jr., BLATT and CRAIG, JJ.
The Bureau of Traffic Safety of the Department of Transportation seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which sustained the license suspension appeal of Scott W. Tillitt (appellee).
The appellee was arrested by the Bethel Park police for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was brought to the police station and was requested to submit to a chemical breath analysis. What then transpired is disputed, but the court below found in favor of the appellee, and so we must accept his version as true. His testimony was as follows:
His father advised him to request the test again and said that he would leave at once for the station, where he arrived, according to the father's testimony, within four minutes. At the station the father requested the officers to allow his son then to take the test, but they refused.
A driver's refusal to take a breathalyzer test mandates suspension of his operator's license under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547, and "we have consistently defined a refusal as anything Substantially short of an unqualified unequivocal assent to an officer's request to the arrested motorist." Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Pedick, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 44, 47, 403 A.2d 181, 182 (1979) (emphasis added). Here, the common pleas court concluded that the appellee's delay in consenting to the test was not substantial, holding that "(t)he retraction of the refusal, and request that the test be administered all within moments, was a sufficient asset under the circumstances of this case."
Under Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, the police officer must inform the driver that his operating privilege will be suspended for refusal to submit to the test. We have previously observed that this section requires "prior warning of the consequence of refusing the test." Peppelman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 262, 265, 403 A.2d 1041, 1043 (1979). According to the appellee's testimony, accepted by the court below, he was not informed as to the consequences until...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zubik v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety
... ... § 1547, and we have consistently defined a refusal as anything substantially short of an unqualified unequivocal assent to an officer's request to the arrested motorist." Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Tillitt, 49 Pa.Commonwealth 343, 346, 411 A.2d 276, 277 (1980) (emphasis deleted) ... Once the Commonwealth had proved the elements of refusal, the burden was on the appellant to show his refusal was not knowing and conscious, and that question was one of fact for the court below. In Re ... ...
-
Donnelly v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing
...to a blood test would indicate a refusal. See Garner v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 879 A.2d 327, 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). Tillitt involved a licensee who refused to submit to a test before a police officer warned him of the consequences of refusal. 411 A.2d at 277. After t......
-
Ritorto v. Commonwealth, No. 2133 C.D. 2008 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 8/7/2009)
... ... , Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing ... No. 2133 C.D. 2008 ... Martinovic v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30 (Pa ... Naples v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety, 531 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). However, ... ...
-
Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Krishak
... ... Guarino is thus inapplicable. The trial court also relied upon Abate v. Department of Transportation, 53 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 104, 416 A.2d 1159 (1980) and Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Tillitt, 49 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 343, 411 A.2d 276 (1980). In Abate the driver refused to be taken to police barracks, but he was never informed that the testing equipment was there. In Tillitt the driver, after being informed of the consequences of his refusal, equivocated instantaneously and then ... ...