Commonwealth v. Patrick A. Haag, Sr J-41-2009 (10/23/2009)
Topic: DUI - Prior Offenses
Summary: For a DUI offense to be a second or subsequent conviction for sentencing purposes, the offender must be convicted of the prior offense before committing the second or subsequent offense.
For more information, go to:
http://kdka.com/local/DUI.crackdown.Labor.2.1136982.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09232/992110-147.stm
For information on local taxi companies, go to:
Topic: DUI Refusal – Right to Counsel
Summary: There is no right to counsel before submitting to a chemical test for a DUI.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-165-2008mo.pdf
Topic: DUI 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3802(d) – Prescription Drugs – Sufficiency of the Evidence
Summary: For a defendant to be convicted of driving under the influence of a prescription drug, the prosecutor must present expert testimony on the intoxicating effect of the drug.
Topic: Reasonable Suspicion – Automobile Stop – Officer’s Duty to Aid
Summary: Where an officer approaches a vehicle to render aid, the incident is a mere encounter and reasonable suspicion is not necessary.
Illustration: While driving on a desolate road in the middle of the night, Defendant pulled over. Although the officer was following Defendant for a few minutes, no motor vehicle violations were observed. The police officer asserted that he pulled over to see if everything was ok. The police do not need reasonable suspicion when they are acting on their duty to render aid. Therefore, the Superior Court found that this was not an investigative detention/stop and reasonable suspicion was not needed.
Topic: DUI – Merger of Offenses
Summary: Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a high rate of alcohol is a lesser included offense of Aggravated Assault while Driving Under the Influence. Therefore, the offenses merge for sentencing purposes.
Topic: DUI – Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) – Coefficient of Variation
Summary: Where the coefficient of variation fails to indicate that the defendant may have been operating a vehicle while below the legal limit, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
Illustration: Sibley was charged with DUI with a blood alcohol level above 0.16%. There was a 3% coefficient of variation. Sibley argued that with this variation, his blood alcohol level may have been anywhere between 0.157% to 0.167% and the evidence was therefore insufficient to support his conviction. The Superior Court concluded that, since the evidence showed that Sibley’s BAC was between 0.157% to 0.167%, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of DUI with a 0.16% blood alcohol level (The question of what the precise BAC was goes to the weight of the evidence).
For more information, go to:
http://post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/528401.html?nav=5004
Topic: DUI – Suppression of Evidence – Exigent Circumstances
Summary: An officer may enter a the garage of a private residence when he has probable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle that is seen in that garage was driving under the influence.
Illustration: Fickes was accused of driving over a mailbox and partially uprooting a victim’s tree. The police followed a trail of antifreeze from the victim’s home to Fickes’ driveway. The officers witnessed Fickes’ vehicle poorly parked (rammed into furniture) in the garage. After knocking and not getting a response, the officers entered the garage and entered the vehicle. The Superior Court distinguished this case from Commonwealth v. John Charles Lee and concluded that probable cause existed to enter the garage. The Court found that DUI is a serious offense and that there was the risk of evidence being destroyed (alcohol leaving Fickes’ system).
For more information, go to:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090321/METRO/903210388/Judge+disses+drunken+driving+tipsters