R.C. Soeder v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
1437 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Licensee (Soeder) crashed a single-vehicle collision on June 7, 2014, was transported to the hospital, and troopers detected signs of alcohol (odor, bloodshot eyes).
- Trooper Jones read the DL-26 implied-consent warnings in the ER at 8:08 p.m., informed Licensee he was under arrest, and asked for blood testing; Licensee twice said he was confused, then asked for an attorney and said words to the effect of “you’re not taking my effing blood,” and refused to sign DL-26.
- Licensee testified he had been stung by hornets, experienced throat swelling and confusion, recalled little of the crash, and denied seeing the DL-26.
- Neighbor and hospital observations described Licensee as groggy, spacey, and combative; hospital testing produced a serum alcohol level equivalent to 0.074 whole blood (below legal limit).
- Licensee presented Dr. Smith, who opined (to reasonable medical certainty) that post-concussive state and possible anaphylaxis rendered Licensee incapable of a knowing, conscious refusal; Troopers and hospital records did not corroborate anaphylaxis or concussion.
- Trial court upheld the one-year suspension for refusal; Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding (1) under totality of circumstances Licensee was effectively under arrest when warnings/read, (2) Trooper provided a meaningful opportunity to respond, and (3) Licensee failed to meet his burden to show incapacity to refuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "arrest" occurred for Implied Consent purposes when DL-26 warnings were read in the ER | Soeder: no formal arrest; reading DL-26 alone insufficient—must show deprivation of freedom | DOT: totality of circumstances (single-vehicle crash, treatment in ER, DL-26 statement) put Licensee under officer custody | Court: Under totality, circumstances (including DL-26 reading and ongoing treatment) supported finding Licensee was under arrest |
| Whether Licensee was given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the request for testing | Soeder: confusion, injury, and recent crash prevented meaningful opportunity | DOT: Trooper twice read warnings and allowed responses; no extraneous conditions were imposed | Court: Trooper satisfied duties; Licensee’s responses were less than an unequivocal assent (thus a refusal) |
| Whether Licensee’s conduct constituted an unequivocal refusal | Soeder: did not unambiguously refuse due to incapacity and confusion | DOT: statements asking for attorney and refusing blood were clear refusal | Court: Licensee’s statements and conduct amounted to a refusal |
| Whether Licensee proved he was incapable of a knowing, conscious refusal (burden shifts to licensee) | Soeder: Dr. Smith’s expert opinion that concussion/anaphylaxis (and not alcohol) caused incapacity | DOT: hospital records and Trooper testimony undermine medical conclusion; alcohol cannot be ruled out | Court: Licensee failed to carry burden; credibility and medical evidence were insufficient to show incapacity |
Key Cases Cited
- Maletic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 819 A.2d 640 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (reading DL-26 in hospital and totality of circumstances can support finding of arrest)
- Woods v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 541 A.2d 846 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (no arrest where officer did not restrict freedom or indicate custody)
- Sfida v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 877 A.2d 537 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (officer’s contradictory statements and lack of arrest finding distinguishable)
- Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 737 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1999) (elements plaintiff must prove to sustain implied-consent suspension)
- Renwick v. Department of Transportation, 669 A.2d 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (refusal defined as anything substantially less than unqualified assent)
- Barbour v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 732 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 1999) (medical expert required, to reasonable degree of medical certainty, to establish incapacity to refuse)