J. Bonanno v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
1798 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- On December 10, 2015, Jeremy Bonanno crashed into a utility pole, failed three field sobriety tests, admitted drinking, and was arrested for suspected DUI.
- Officer Galzarano asked Bonanno three times to submit to a blood test; Bonanno refused each time and declined to sign the DL-26 warning form.
- Bonanno was released after his wife arrived; she returned to tell the officer Bonanno would submit to testing, but the officer said Bonanno had already refused.
- PennDOT suspended Bonanno’s license for one year under 75 Pa.C.S. §1547 for chemical test refusal; Bonanno filed a statutory appeal.
- The trial court found PennDOT met the prima facie elements but nonetheless sua sponte relied on Birchfield v. North Dakota to sustain Bonanno’s appeal and vacate the suspension.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred to decide the case on an issue neither party raised and (2) Birchfield does not undermine civil license suspensions for test refusal as applied in Pennsylvania.
Issues
| Issue | Bonanno (Plaintiff) Argument | PennDOT (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonanno’s conduct amounted to a refusal under §1547 | He was confused by the warnings, later indicated willingness to submit (via wife), so no knowing refusal | Bonanno explicitly refused multiple times; subsequent wife’s statement does not cure prior unqualified refusal | Held for PennDOT: Bonanno’s repeated refusals met §1547 refusal element |
| Whether officer had duty to ensure Bonanno understood DL-26 warnings | Officer’s testimony shows Bonanno likely did not understand; confusion vitiates refusal (citing MacDonald) | Officer need only convey warnings; no duty to ensure comprehension | Held for PennDOT: officer satisfied obligation by giving warnings; comprehension not required |
| Whether trial court could sua sponte apply Birchfield | Bonanno conceded Birchfield inapplicable to his civil appeal | PennDOT argued court erred to raise an unbriefed issue and that Birchfield permits civil sanctions | Held: trial court erred to decide on sua sponte theory not raised by parties |
| Whether Birchfield invalidates Pennsylvania’s civil license suspensions for refusal | Bonanno (via trial court) relied on Birchfield to attack civil penalty as effectively coercive | PennDOT: Birchfield addressed criminal penalties; it did not disturb civil forfeitures or suspensions | Held: Birchfield does not control civil suspensions; Boseman affirmed that Birchfield doesn’t apply to civil implied-consent penalties |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDonald v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 708 A.2d 154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (confusion about warnings that leads to subsequent assent negates a refusal)
- Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (elements the Commonwealth must prove for a §1547 suspension)
- McKenna v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 72 A.3d 294 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (officer’s duty limited to conveying implied-consent warnings, not ensuring comprehension)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (holding criminal penalties may not be imposed for refusing a warrantless blood test; did not question civil sanction statutes)
- Boseman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (applying Birchfield and holding it does not invalidate civil license suspensions)
- King v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 828 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (anything less than unqualified, unequivocal assent to testing constitutes a refusal)