Moran v. Com.
| Citation | 403 A.2d 637,44 Pa.Cmwlth. 105 |
| Parties | Joseph P. MORAN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1979 |
| Court | Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
Maurice Levin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Philadelphia, Harold H. Cramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MENCER and MacPHAIL, JJ.
Petitioner was arrested by the Pennsylvania State Police for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, 75 P.S. § 3731. He was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. He refused. The arresting officer transported him to the police station where he was again asked to take a breathalyzer test and again refused. At this point we arrive at the crux of petitioner's case and state from the State Police Officer's testimony:
Section 1547 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2) provides: "It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that the person's operating privilege will be suspended or revoked upon refusal to submit to a chemical test."
It is the petitioner's principal argument on appeal that the use of the words "could be" by the officer rather than "will be" is violative of the Code's specific provision and makes the suspension of the license improper.
We need not decide this narrow question in this case for it was quite clear in the testimony at the hearing before the trial court that petitioner did not rely on the officer's exact words. On the contrary, he requested and the officer supplied him with a copy of Section 1547 of the Code and he read it. Therefore, petitioner had from the officer precisely what the Code mandates the officer tell him.
Petitioner's remaining argument is that the equipment that would have been used in the breathalyzer test had not been approved and therefore the results of the test would not have been admissible even if petitioner had not refused to take it. Petitioner would distinguish our decision in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zubik v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety
...to the satisfaction of the statute. See Everhart; In Re Harper, 57 Pa.Commonwealth 89, 426 A.2d 196 (1981); Moran v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.Commonwealth 105, 403 A.2d 637 (1979). Appellant's second argument is that he did not make a knowing and conscious refusal of the test. He argues that he ......
-
Rogers, In re
...license for his refusal to submit to a test. Halloway v. Martin, 143 Ariz. 311, 693 P.2d 966 (Ct.App.1984); Moran v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.Commw. 105, 403 A.2d 637 (1979); Bell v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 6 Wash.App. 736, 496 P.2d 545 (1972). But see Mullens v. Department of Pub. Safety,......
-
Wolfe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety
...of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Driver Improvement, 619 So.2d 988 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); Moran v. Commmonwealth, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 105, 403 A.2d 637 (1979); Bell v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 6 Wash.App. 736, 496 P.2d 545 (1972); see Malveaux v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Mo......
-
Planchak v. Commonwealth
...to Licensee. As a result, Licensee was adequately apprised of the consequences of refusal as a matter of law. See Weaver; Moran v. Commonwealth, 403 A.2d 637 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Accordingly, and for the above reasons, the decision of the trial court sustaining Licensee's one-year suspension......