P. Gilpatrick v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
2506 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Paul Gilpatrick (Licensee) was stopped for traffic violations; officer observed signs of intoxication and administered field sobriety tests using written instructions because Licensee is deaf.
- At the hospital the officer gave Licensee the DL-26 chemical testing warnings in writing, asked him to read them, and testified that Licensee read them and initially agreed to testing.
- At the blood-draw area Licensee repeatedly requested an interpreter, gestured toward his vein, and made motions the officer interpreted as a refusal; no interpreter was provided.
- The Department suspended Licensee's driving privileges for one year under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i) for refusing chemical testing.
- The trial court held a de novo hearing, credited the officer's testimony, found Licensee's testimony vague and insubstantial, and denied Licensee's statutory appeal; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Gilpatrick's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer adequately advised Licensee of the consequences of refusing chemical testing | Officer failed to secure an interpreter; warnings not effectively communicated to a deaf person | Written DL-26 shown and read was sufficient to inform Licensee; officer made reasonable efforts | The court held warnings were adequately communicated by providing the DL-26 in writing and directing Licensee to read it |
| Whether Licensee's conduct constituted a refusal to submit to chemical testing | Licensee did not knowingly refuse; requested interpreter and lacked understanding | Body language, requests for an interpreter, and conduct amounted to refusal; anything less than unqualified assent is a refusal | The court held Licensee's conduct (requests for interpreter, gestures, actions) constituted a refusal |
| Whether Licensee proved his refusal was not knowing and conscious due to deafness and lack of interpreter | Deafness prevented a knowing, conscious refusal; Gaertner supports that need for interpreter can negate knowing refusal | Officer has no duty to provide an interpreter; burden is on licensee to prove inability to make a knowing refusal | The court held Licensee failed to prove inability to make a knowing and conscious refusal and distinguished Gaertner on credibility grounds |
| Whether officer had duty to ensure comprehension or provide interpreter | Officer must secure an interpreter for deaf arrestees to obtain valid consent/refusal | No duty to provide or permit an interpreter; officer satisfied duty by advising warnings | The court held no duty to provide an interpreter; officer's limited duty is to advise the warnings, which was met |
Key Cases Cited
- Kollar v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 7 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Department must prove refusal and warnings; burden then shifts to licensee to prove nonknowing or physical inability)
- Lanthier v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 22 A.3d 346 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (if alcohol caused inability to render a knowing refusal, licensee cannot meet burden)
- Reinhart v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 954 A.2d 761 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (credibility and weight of evidence are for factfinder)
- Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driving Licensing, 873 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (DL-26 verbiage can be sufficient to inform licensee of implied consent consequences)
- Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 969 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. en banc) (written warnings may suffice where licensee chooses to read them)
- Martinovic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (officer has no duty to provide or permit an interpreter)
- Renwick v. Dep’t of Transp., 669 A.2d 934 (Pa.) (overall conduct and body language may demonstrate refusal; anything less than unequivocal assent is refusal)
- McKenna v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 72 A.3d 294 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (whether conduct constitutes refusal is a question of law)
- Gaertner v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 589 A.2d 272 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deaf licensee’s refusal held not knowing where interpreter was necessary)
- Scott v. Dep’t of Transp., 684 A.2d 539 (Pa.) (officer’s duty limited to advising the implied consent warnings)