E. Wilcox v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
E. Wilcox v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing - 128 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. on March 20, 2016, Trooper Trego stopped Wilcox for unsafe driving and observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech).
- Wilcox performed poorly on standardized field sobriety tests and registered ~0.17 on a prearrest breath test (PBT).
- Wilcox was arrested and transported to the barracks, where Trooper Trego read the DL-26 implied-consent warnings and requested a post-arrest breathalyzer.
- Wilcox refused the post-arrest breath test, declined to sign the DL-26, and claimed he had asthma and difficulty breathing (he had needed multiple attempts to complete the PBT).
- The Bureau suspended Wilcox’s license for 12 months under 75 Pa.C.S. §1547(b)(1)(i); Wilcox appealed.
- The trial court credited Wilcox’s testimony and sustained the appeal, reasoning Wilcox subjectively believed the PBT and his asthma justified refusal and that Karabinos required the officer to explain why a second test was requested. The Commonwealth Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilcox’s refusal to submit to a post-arrest chemical test supports suspension under §1547(b)(1)(i) | Wilcox argued his refusal was not knowing/conscious because he had asthma and reasonably believed the earlier PBT sufficed | Bureau argued Wilcox refused after being properly warned and completion of a PBT does not satisfy §1547 chemical-test requirement | Court held Bureau met its burden; PBT does not substitute for post-arrest chemical testing and Wilcox’s subjective confusion/asthma did not excuse refusal |
| Whether officer had to tell Wilcox why a second/different test was requested (Karabinos rule) | Wilcox relied on Karabinos to argue police must explain why an additional test was requested | Bureau argued Karabinos is distinguishable and inapplicable where only a PBT (prearrest) had been taken and no change in test type was requested | Court held Karabinos distinguishable and inapplicable; officer need not explain reason for second test in these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connell v. Dep't of Transp., 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (sets implied-consent warning and elements Bureau must prove)
- Karabinos v. Dep't of Transp., 739 A.2d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (officer must inform licensee when a second chemical test is requested that initial test produced invalid results)
- Sitoski v. Dep't of Transp., 11 A.3d 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (completion of a PBT does not satisfy §1547 chemical-testing requirement)
- Ryan v. Dep't of Transp., 823 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (licensee’s subjective confusion from having taken a PBT does not excuse refusal of post-arrest test)
- Kollar v. Dep't of Transp., 7 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (once Bureau proves elements, burden shifts to driver to show physical incapacity or that refusal was not knowing/conscious)