G.S. Lepre, Jr. v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
G.S. Lepre, Jr. v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing - 1082 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- On October 31, 2015, Gerald S. Lepre, Jr. was stopped, arrested for DUI (75 Pa. C.S. §3802) and asked to submit to chemical testing; police recorded a refusal on DL-26.
- The Bureau mailed a November 27, 2015 notice of one-year license suspension under the Implied Consent Law (75 Pa.C.S. §1547(b)(1)(i)); Lepre did not receive it.
- The DL-26 and arrest paperwork contained errors (misspelled last name, missing apartment number, wrong license number) traced to the arresting officers’ paperwork; the incident number was recorded correctly on DL-26.
- Lepre petitioned to appeal nunc pro tunc; the trial court granted relief and held a de novo hearing on June 30, 2016.
- At the de novo hearing three officers testified identifying Lepre as the arrestee, describing indicia of intoxication, stating they read the DL-26 warnings, and that Lepre refused blood draws; the trial court dismissed Lepre’s appeal and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Lepre's Argument | Bureau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of civil suspension under Birchfield | Birchfield makes criminal penalties for refusal unconstitutional, so suspension invalid | Birchfield permits civil implied-consent penalties; Pennsylvania suspension is civil | Held: Birchfield inapplicable; civil license suspension valid |
| Failure to receive statutory notice (75 Pa.C.S. §1540(b)) | Did not receive Bureau’s notice due to mailing errors; appeal period tolled | Bureau’s defective mailing occurred but trial court cured by granting nunc pro tunc and a de novo hearing | Held: Notice defect remedied by nunc pro tunc relief and de novo hearing |
| Coordinate-jurisdiction challenge | Granting nunc pro tunc amounted to deciding merits, violating coordinate jurisdiction rule | Nunc pro tunc proceeding addressed only timeliness; merits decided later by different judge | Held: No violation; procedural allocation proper |
| Probable cause for the stop/arrest | Arrest lacked probable cause, so suspension should be invalid | Legality of stop/arrest is irrelevant in civil refusal-suspension proceeding | Held: Probable cause irrelevant to civil suspension; arrest legality immaterial |
| Credibility / evidentiary weight of DL-26 errors vs. officer testimony | DL-26 defects more probative; form fails to identify him | Credibility and weight are for the trial court; officers unequivocally identified Lepre | Held: Trial court crediting officers was supported by competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible; blood tests require a warrant; criminal penalties for refusal to submit to blood tests not allowed; civil implied-consent laws not invalidated)
- Nornhold v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 59 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (license suspensions under Implied Consent Law are civil)
- Regula v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 146 A.3d 836 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (standard of review in license suspension appeals: factual findings supported by competent evidence; review for legal error or abuse of discretion)
- Wysocki v. Department of Transportation, 535 A.2d 77 (Pa. 1987) (legality of underlying arrest irrelevant in civil refusal-suspension proceedings)
- Kachurak v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 913 A.2d 982 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (reiterating that arrest legality does not affect civil suspension for refusal)
- Stein v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 857 A.2d 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (even unconstitutional arrests do not preclude civil suspensions)