Commonwealth v. EverettCommonwealth v. Everett
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Mencer
Opinion by
Judge Mencer,On April 11,1970, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Michael J. Cunningham arrested1 Kenneth R. Everett (appellee) for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of Section 1037 of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, as amended (Code),
Upon receiving a report of this refusal, the Secretary of Transportation, under
The sole basis stated by the lower court for sustaining the appeal and reversing the suspension was that “[t]he magistrate having dismissed the charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages, the Court is therefore of the opinion that a suspension of the petitioner for refusal to submit to a breathalizer test is an abuse of discretion on behalf of the Secretary. . . .”
We realize that the lower court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 300 A. 2d 831 (1973). In Abraham we held that despite the fact that the criminal charge (operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor) was dis*505missed, there remained the separate refusal to take the breathlyzer test, the suspension for which was a civil proceeding and within the power of the Secretary to impose in accord with
This section does not require a conviction for the alleged violation of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but the Legislature chose “placed under arrest,” rather than subsequent conviction as the necessary prerequisite to justify a suspension for a refusal to submit to a chemical test of the breath. We held in Commonwealth v. Smith, Jr., 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 78, 293 A. 2d 158 (1972), that strict compliance with
Since we conclude that here the facts are identical in all significant respects to Commonwealth v. Abraham, supra, we must hold that Abraham controls. Therefore, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County is reversed and the order of the Secretary of Transportation is reinstated.
Notes
Appellee has raised no question here as to the legal propriety of his arrest.