Peppelman v. Com.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1979 |
| Parties | James D. PEPPELMAN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
John J. Kerrigan, Jr., Stuckert, Yates & Krewson, Newtown, for appellant.
Maurice Levin, Philadelphia, Harold H. Cramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before WILKINSON, ROGERS and MacPHAIL, JJ.
This is the appeal of James D. Peppelman from an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas upholding the suspension of his driving privileges by the Department of Transportation under Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1), for his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test.
On August 28, 1977, Peppelman was involved in an automobile accident and was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Section 3731(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(1). The arresting officer requested Peppelman to submit to a breathalyzer test and warned him that if he refused, he Could lose his license. Peppelman agreed to take the test. On the way to the state police barracks where the test was to be conducted, the officer told Peppelman that the driver of another car involved in the accident had died and advised Peppelman to consult a lawyer. Peppelman called a lawyer as soon as he arrived at the barracks and, on the lawyer's advice, refused to submit to the breathalyzer test. Peppelman appears to have refused to submit to the test for a reason other than that of the form of the officer's warning. The Department suspended Peppelman's operating privileges.
Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2), states: "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." (Emphasis added.) Peppelman argues here that the officer's use of the word "could" instead of "will" in informing him of the consequences of refusal was not that required by the statute and that the suspension should therefore be set aside. We are impelled to agree.
In Moran v. Commonwealth, --- Pa.Cmwlth. ---, 403 A.2d 637 (1979), we found it unnecessary to decide the question here raised because the petitioner there, who also was informed only that his license Could be suspended, was also given a copy of Section 1547(b)(2) which he read so that we held that he had been properly informed. Peppelman was afforded only the officer's oral information and we must now decide whether the Act requiring that the motorist shall be told that his license will be suspended or revoked if he refuses the test is satisfied by telling him that the license could be suspended or revoked for this cause.
Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, requiring the warning that suspension or revocation will follow refusal was added by the new Vehicle Code which became effective July 1, 1977. The breathalyzer provision section of the old Vehicle Code 1, Section 624.1, did not require a warning. We gave strict construction to Section 624.1. We held that a police officer had no duty to warn a motorist who was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol that a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test would result in a revocation or suspension of the motorist's operating privilege. Commonwealth v. Williams, 19 Pa.Cmwlth. 363, 338 A.2d 742 (1975). We also held that a suspension of operating privileges under Section 624.1 was proper although the arrest was not lawful, Commonwealth v. Barrett, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 559, 349 A.2d 798 (1976), and although the licensee was subsequently acquitted of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. Commonwealth v. Clawson, 9 Pa.Cmwlth. 87, 305 A.2d 732 (1973). In short, we took the strict view that all that was required to be shown for sanctions was that the motorist be arrested, that he be charged with driving under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheakley v. Com., Dept. of Transp.
...to a breathalyzer test and that the duty to warn is entirely statutory. Id. at 608-609, 450 A.2d 236-237; Peppelman v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 262, 403 A.2d 1041 (1979); Boyle v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 19 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 22, 339 A.2d 834 (19......
-
Quigley v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 2313 C.D. 2007.
...to a motorist who happens to work for the Bureau of Driver Licensing or one employed as a police officer. In Peppelman v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa. Cmwlth. 262, 403 A.2d 1041 (1979) this Court held that using the word "could" instead of "will" in the Section 1547(b) warning did not comply with t......
-
Yourick v. Com., Dept. of Transp., No. 2280 C.D. 2007
...favor and against PennDOT, which was held not to have satisfied the mandate of Section 1547(b)(2).8 See also Peppelman v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 262, 403 A.2d 1041, 1043 (1979) (an officer's that the motorist's refusal to undergo chemical testing "could" result in a suspension was foun......
-
Patane v. Commonwealth
...the suspension of his operating privilege, regardless of whether he relied on it. ( Id. at 18-19 (citing Peppelman v. Commonwealth , 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 262, 403 A.2d 1041 (1979) ).) But, in this case, Licensee argues that he did rely on this misinformation in deciding not to submit to a chemical......