PA License Suspension in DUI Refusal Case For “Stalling” Tactics
Posted in DUI on December 29, 2024
In Pennsylvania, a police officer can require a driver to submit to a test to determine the blood alcohol concentration if the officer has “reasonable grounds” to believe that the person is driving under the influence. In many areas, the police used blood tests to determine the alcohol level, but some areas do use breathalyzer tests. A refusal to submit to the testing causes PennDOT to suspend the person’s Pennsylvania driving privileges.
When a police officer requires a person to submit to alcohol testing, the officer is required to inform the driver that they do not have the right to talk to an attorney first. The officer must also tell the driver that a test refusal will result in a license suspension. To ensure that the officer provides the required warnings, the officer reads a DL-26 form that was prepared by PennDOT. The officer normally tries to have the driver sign the form as evidence that the warnings were read. The officer is not required to get a signature, and the driver cannot be punished for refusing to sign the form. The officer may allow a driver to read the form, but they are not required to do so. The law only requires that the officer read the form.
What is a refusal in a PA DUI case?
As an experienced PA DUI attorney, I am frequently contacted by people that are facing a license suspension for refusing the alcohol test. They want to appeal because they do not believe that they actually refused the test because they never expressly said no. The problem is that the law does not require an express “no.” Instead, the law basically states that anything short of putting forth one’s arm for the needle stick is deemed to be a refusal. Repeatedly asking for an attorney, asking too many questions, or demanding to read the form have been deemed refusals.
In a case, the driver was arrested for a DUI and requested to submit to a blood draw. The driver initially extended his arm and said “affirmative,” clearly showing consent to the blood draw. The officer then asked the person to sign the PennDOT form. At that point, the driver noted that he was a law student and would not sign any document that he didn’t read. The officer allowed the driver to read the form. After taking time to read the form numerous times, there was some “back and forth” discussions and disagreements between the officer and the driver. It sounded like the law student asked numerous questions. The officer ultimately felt that the driver’s actions were intended to delay the blood draw, so the officer simply deemed it a refusal.
The driver appealed the suspension and argued that his actions clearly showed that he consented. He argued that his actions did not show an unwillingness to consent and that he was being punished for not signing the form. The Commonwealth Court disagreed with those arguments. The Court stated that the driver’s arguments and questions were a delay tactic and did not show unequivocal consent to testing. The court ruled that the officer correctly deemed this a refusal. Therefore, the suspension was appropriate. This case is a great example that anything other than extending one’s arm for the needle is a refusal. The case was Rory M. Burns v. PennDOT, issued by the Commonwealth Court on October 15th of 2024.
License Options in PA Refusal Suspension Case
The driver was facing an 18-month suspension of his Pennsylvania driving privileges for the refusal because he had a prior offense. With such a suspension, the driver was eligible to obtain an Ignition Interlock Limited License (IILL) after serving 9 months of the suspension. For more information about the IILL, click here.