Com. v. Rutan
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 323 A.2d 730,229 Pa.Super. 400 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Frank E. RUTAN, III, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1974 |
Page 730
v.
Frank E. RUTAN, III, Appellant.
[229 Pa.Super. 401]
Page 731
SPAETH, Judge.This appeal presents one question: Must a person lawfully requested to take a breathalyzer test be told that he can refuse to take the test and that the results of the test or evidence of his refusal can be used against him at trial? The answer is no.
Under the terms of the 'implied consent law', The Motor Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, § 624.1, added by Act of July 28, 1961, P.L. 918, § 1, as amended by Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 758, No. 237, § 1; Act of Dec. 22, 1969, P.L. 392, § 1, a person may be asked to submit to a breathalyzer test where there are 'reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.' § 624.1(a). If the person consents to testing, the results of the test are admissible evidence. § 624.1(b). If the person refuses, he may lose his license to drive, [229 Pa.Super. 402] § 624.1(a), and '(t)he refusal to submit . . . may be admitted into evidence as a factor to be considered in determining innocence or guilt.' § 624.1(h). The implied consent law contains no requirement that a person be told that he can refuse to submit to testing or that a refusal carries consequences, 1 and we hesitate to read such a requirement into the law. Daugherty v. Continental Can Co., Inc., 226 Pa.Super. 342, 348, 313 A.2d 276, 279 (1973). Cf. Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 535, 300 A.2d 831 (1973).
Especially do we hesitate since the need for requiring warnings is not altogether clear. It would certainly avoid confusion if a person were given a full explanation of his rights and obligations in regard to breath tests. See, e.g., Veilleux v. Springer, 131 Vt. 33, 42, 300 A.2d 620, 626 (1973). On the other hand, it has been said that 'all persons are presumed to know the law and are therefore presumed to be so informed as to (their) rights. They should acquaint themselves, at least with those laws most likely to affect their
Page 732
usual activities.' People v. Kovacik, 205 Misc. 275, 292, 128 N.Y.S.2d 492, 509 (1954). 2[229 Pa.Super. 403] In addition to this consideration, it seems likely that as a matter of good police practice, normally warnings will be given in order to take full advantage of the coercive features of the law and to secure the best evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence. Knowledge that a refusal can lead to loss of one's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fish
...69 Ohio L.Abs. 261, 124 N.E.2d 841 (1954); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 229 Pa.Super. 131, 324 A.2d 441 (1974); Commonwealth v. Rutan, 229 Pa.Super. 400, 323 A.2d 730 (1974); Commonwealth v. Jones, 242 Pa.Super. 471, 364 A.2d 368 (1976); Com. v. Dougherty, 259 Pa.Super. 88, 393 A.2d 730 (1978)......
-
Com. v. Hipp
...of the refusal excluded...." Commonwealth v. Funk, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 241-42, 385 A.2d at 999-1000, quoting Commonwealth v. Rutan, 229 Pa.Super. 400, 404, 323 A.2d 730, 732 (1974) (citations omitted). Accord: Commonwealth v. Trefry, 249 Pa.Super. 117, 127-30, 375 A.2d 786, 792-793 Appel......
-
Com. v. Molino
...1092-1093, citing, Commonwealth v. Funk, 254 Pa.Super. 233 at 241-242, 385 A.2d 995 at 999-1000 [1978], quoting Commonwealth v. Rutan, 229 Pa.Super. 400, 404, 323 A.2d 730, 732 (1974) (citations Therefore, as there is no constitutional right to refuse the blood alcohol test, but only a stat......
-
Com. v. Monahan
...under implied consent law is not violative of defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination); Commonwealth v. Rutan, 229 Pa.Super. 400, 323 A.2d 730 (1974) (same); see also State v. Stever, 107 N.J. 543, 527 A.2d 408 (1987) cert. denied 484 U.S. 954, 108 S.Ct. 348, 98 L.E......