S. Price v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
1873 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- On May 14, 2016, Sandra Price was stopped, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, had a .203% PBT, and was arrested for DUI under 75 Pa. C.S. §3802.
- Officer Forrester asked Price to submit to a blood test; she initially agreed but then refused at the hospital after the officer read Form DL-26 aloud.
- The DL-26 read to Price warned of a one-year license suspension for refusal and also (on the prior form) warned that refusal could lead to enhanced criminal penalties under Sections 3803/3804.
- The Department of Transportation imposed a one-year administrative suspension under the Implied Consent Law, 75 Pa. C.S. §1547; Price appealed and the trial court sustained her appeal.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court, holding Birchfield and related criminal-law decisions do not invalidate a civil license suspension where the driver was warned of the suspension and refused testing.
- Concurring and dissenting opinions: Judge McCullough concurred but argued such civil suspensions may be unconstitutional post-Birchfield; Judge Cosgrove dissented, emphasizing DL-26 misinformation made the suspension unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Price's Argument | DOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield v. North Dakota invalidates a §1547 license suspension based on refusal to submit to a blood test | DL-26’s warning of criminal penalties (now unconstitutional under Birchfield) made her refusal uninformed, so suspension invalid | Birchfield addresses criminal prosecutions; administrative license suspensions are civil and valid where the driver was warned of the civil suspension and refused | Reversed trial court: Birchfield inapplicable to civil §1547 suspensions; suspension reinstated |
| Whether the Department met its burden for a §1547 suspension | N/A (Price argued her refusal was not informed) | Department satisfied elements: arrest for DUI, request for test, refusal, and specific warning of suspension | Court: Department met its burden; burden then shifted to Price to show refusal was not knowing/voluntary or she was physically unable; she did not do so |
| Whether misinformation on DL-26 about criminal penalties invalidates an administrative refusal | DL-26’s (prior) criminal-penalty language rendered the warning inaccurate and the refusal uninformed | Any mention of criminal penalties is irrelevant to the civil suspension; DL-26 did warn of the civil suspension required by §1547 | Court: criminal-penalty language irrelevant to civil suspension; inaccurate criminal-warning does not negate the civil warning or consent requirement |
| Whether Price proved her refusal was not knowing, conscious, or was due to physical inability | Price argued lack of an "informed" refusal; did not assert unconsciousness or physical inability | Absent proof that refusal was involuntary or due to incapacity, suspension stands | Held: Price failed to meet the burden to overcome suspension; one-year suspension reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Quigley v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 349 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (elements required to sustain a §1547 license suspension)
- Boucher v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 691 A.2d 450 (Pa. 1997) (licensee must show refusal was not knowing, conscious, or due to inability)
- Giron v. Commonwealth, 155 A.3d 635 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Pennsylvania Superior Court holding criminal penalties for refusal implicated by Birchfield)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (analysis that refusal-based criminal enhancements raise constitutional issues)
- Boseman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (holding that Birchfield does not invalidate civil license suspensions under §1547)