T.A. Blythe v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
T.A. Blythe v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing - 834 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Shortly after midnight on Dec. 14, 2014, Blythe was found parked at an elementary school and investigated by Officer Andrew Vattilana on suspicion of DUI after field sobriety tests.
- Officer observed signs of intoxication (alcohol odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech) and arrested Blythe and transported him to a hospital for chemical testing.
- At the hospital Officer Vattilana read and explained the Department DL-26 warnings twice; Blythe alternately requested an attorney, initially said he would not consent, later gave mixed oral responses (twice consenting and twice refusing in testimony), and the officer testified Blythe ultimately refused.
- Blythe received a Notice of Suspension for refusal to submit to chemical testing and appealed to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which credited the officer’s testimony and affirmed the suspension.
- Blythe appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing he was not given a meaningful opportunity to read the DL-26 form and therefore did not knowingly refuse testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to let Blythe read the DL-26 before it was read aloud means Blythe did not knowingly refuse chemical testing under 75 Pa.C.S. §1547 | Blythe: He was not given a meaningful opportunity to read/consider the DL-26; therefore he never knowingly refused and did not validly refuse testing | DOT: Officer orally informed Blythe of the warnings as required; there is no statutory requirement that the licensee be allowed to read the form; testimony showed Blythe refused | Court: Affirmed suspension. Credited officer’s testimony; refusal need not be preceded by opportunity to read DL-26; oral warnings suffice and Blythe’s equivocal conduct constituted refusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadbelt v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 903 A.2d 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (elements required to sustain suspension under §1547)
- Harris v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 969 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (officer must orally inform licensee of consequences for refusal to be an adequately informed refusal)
- Sitoski v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 11 A.3d 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (licensee’s ambiguous or equivocal assent is a refusal; burden shifts to licensee to show inability or lack of conscious/knowing refusal)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Moss, 605 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (standard of review for license suspension proceedings)