In a previous post addressing the legal impact of reaching adulthood, we reviewed several legal issues surrounding an 18th birthday in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. With school out for the summer and many college students returning home late May and remaining through August, the number of drivers under the age of twenty-one (21) naturally increases. With this increase in the number of young drivers on the road comes an increased risk of impaired driving. Setting this scene, the topic of today’s post is the effect of a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) before a person’s twenty-first birthday.


DUI is one of the most common criminal charges for college-aged students (17-22) in Pennsylvania. It goes without saying that the drinking age in Pennsylvania is 21. Consumption of alcohol by anyone under 21 is illegal, and for this reason the standards are stricter and punishment often more severe for those charged with underage DUI in Pennsylvania.


For starters, while the blood alcohol content required to charge someone over the age of 21 generally begins at 0.08%, a driver under the age of 21 can be charged with driving under the influence if a chemical test shows a blood alcohol content of 0.02% or higher. Realistically, it’s nearly impossible to have just one alcohol beverage and not go over 0.02%, which is why many in the legal field refer to a charge of underage DUI as a zero tolerance offense.


As it pertains to sentencing, any driver under the age of 21 arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania is charged according to the “high” blood alcohol content rate. The impact of this categorization is that the potential punishment the underage driver faces will likely be far more severe. The potential penalties include jail time up to ninety (90) days, a $500.00 fine, and an automatic license suspension for twelve months if the driver’s blood alcohol content is 0.10% or higher. Penalties only get worse for repeat underage offenders with the potential for a multi-year license suspension and six months in jail.


In addition to the legal consequences, the collateral effects of an underage DUI conviction cannot be ignored. The damage caused by an underage DUI conviction include potential termination of an underage driver’s insurance policy (or at the very least a significant boost in the monthly premiums), significant damage to a college student’s academic standing and educational progress, and potential issues with a student’s financial aid if this student is on scholarship.


Finally, a conviction for DUI will give the underage driver a criminal record. Unless and until new legislation currently making its way through the Pennsylvania House and Senate clears, this record will be accessible by anyone who lawfully runs a background check on you, including prospective employers or administrators at colleges and universities.
If you or your child have been charged with an underage DUI in Pennsylvania, assistance from a skilled and experienced criminal defense attorney is critical. As outlined above, not taking this charge seriously can have dramatic and far-reaching consequences. The Criminal Defense Attorneys at Howland Hess O’Connell, led by Michael W. Cassidy, Esq., have extensive experience and knowledge in assisting clients through these matters. If any of the above information applies to you, call for a free consultation at (215)-947-6240 or contact us online to schedule a meeting.



Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connell encourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.

Following a June, 2016 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota, DUI prosecutions in Pennsylvania are undergoing significant modifications. 

In Birchfield, the U.S. Supreme Court made two considerable declarations. The Court first ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to conduct warrantless breath tests incident to an arrest for drunk driving. However, and much more significantly, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit a blood test incident to arrest without a search warrant. The Court’s rationale is rather straightforward: a blood draw in a DUI case is so intrusive that the search warrant is required.

The impact of this ruling is significant, as the Supreme Court has now directed that a search warrant is presumed required if the police want to take the blood of someone suspected of driving under the influence. This means drivers now have a right to refuse to take a blood test (not breath test) absent a validly issued search warrant, and their refusal to take a blood test cannot be the basis for the imposition of criminal penalties. Furthermore, the “implied-consent” laws in Pennsylvania no longer allow police to draw a person’s blood based solely on the fact that they were arrested while driving and suspected of DUI.

While there is some ambiguity in terms of the applicability of the Supreme Court’s ruling and how it is applied in Pennsylvania, as PA does not treat a refusal as a separate crime, one thing is clear: imposing criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless DUI blood test is unconstitutional.

It is worth noting here that, following the Supreme Court’s June 23rd ruling, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation revised its DL-26 warnings which police read to motorists being asked to submit to a blood alcohol test (blood, urine, or breath) by eliminating all references to criminal penalties for refusal. It is not yet immediately clear the effect Birchfield will have on PennDOT’s ability to issue a one-year license suspension based on a driver’s refusal to submit to a blood test.

It is important to remember that this ruling only directly implicates an individual’s right to refuse to submit to a blood test without a search warrant. Alternatively, and based on the lack of physical intrusion and minimal inconvenience involved, the Supreme Court ruled that search warrants are not required for a breath test. Therefore, officers of this Commonwealth still have the right to demand you submit to a breath test (aka, “breathalyzer”) and do not need to first obtain a search warrant to gain compliance.

It is also important to highlight that even if you’ve been arrested for DUI and informed that refusal to consent to a blood draw would lead to increased penalties, this ruling is not necessarily a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. The State still has the ability to demonstrate general impairment based on the arresting officer’s testimony and other available evidence, and since Pennsylvania does not have a separate crime outlawing refusal to consent to a blood test the impact of Birchfield will (most likely) be felt strongest in the sentencing phase. That being said, the Supreme Court’s rulings in Birchfield will impact the State’s prosecution of DUIs where the only evidence of impairment is from an unconstitutional blood draw.

Whether it is in the conviction or sentencing stage, Birchfield provides significant ammunition to defense attorneys practicing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania arguing for suppression of blood-alcohol content evidence and reduced penalties. If you’ve been arrested for driving under the influence in Pennsylvania, the guidance of an attorney skilled in DUI defense is critical. The Criminal Defense Attorneys at Howland Hess O’Connell have extensive experience and knowledge in assisting clients through these matters. If any of the above information applies to you, call for a free consultation at (215)-947-6240 or contact us online to schedule a meeting.

Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connell encourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.

A common hypothetical often asked of criminal defense attorneys includes the following scenario. A driver is pulled over in the state of Pennsylvania. The officer, suspecting the driver may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, requests the driver submit to chemical testing (be it blood, breath or urine). The driver refuses, believing this may be his or her best way to get out of the DUI under the mistaken belief that the law requires evidence of a chemical test to convict an individual for driving under the influence. So, what happens next?


Pennsylvania has a regulation, the “implied consent” law, which covers just this situation. The law states that the privilege of driving comes with it an understanding that you must submit to a blood, breath or urine test if asked by a law enforcement officer if he or she suspects you may be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Your refusal to comply carries very significant risks. If you refuse, PennDOT (the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) automatically suspends your operating privilege for one full year regardless if you’re later found innocent of the DUI charge. It’s important to recognize that this suspension will be in addition to any court ordered sanctions regarding license suspensions, meaning your total license suspension could span well over one year (potentially as high as almost three years). However, it must be emphasized that an officer has an affirmative duty to provide a motorist arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence with notice/warning that refusing to submit to chemical testing results in this one year suspension.


Now, the “implied consent” law is civil in nature and covers PennDOT’s authority to suspend your license for the year for refusing to submit to chemical testing. This is separate from what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will seek to demonstrate in your DUI case. A common misconception, as stated above, is that by refusing to take a blood, breath or urine test, the state can’t prove you were intoxicated. In reality, the prosecutor for the state will still have several different methods available to make his case. It should initially be noted that your refusal to take a chemical test to determine your blood alcohol content is admissible in court. The prosecutor can attempt to make the connection to the finder of fact that your refusal to take the test was based on your belief that you would be over the limit.


Additionally, the prosecutor’s objective is to show general impairment. Therefore, by calling the arresting officer to the stand to testify as to his observations about your ability to operate a vehicle, your general appearance, and your communications with the officer, the state prosecutor may still have very strong evidence of impairment based on that officer’s eyewitness testimony.


What is most alarming is the fact that, because the Court will have no basis to determine otherwise, if you are convicted for DUI after refusing to submit to chemical testing, you will be prosecuted under the presumption you were driving with the highest blood alcohol content.


If you’ve been arrested for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in Pennsylvania, the guidance of an attorney experienced in DUI defense is critical.The Criminal Defense Attorneys at Howland Hess O’Connell have extensive experience in assisting clients through these matters. If any of the above information applies to you, call for a free consultation at (215)-947-6240 or contact us online to schedule a meeting.


Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connell encourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.

On May 25, 2016, Pennsylvania enacted Act 33. This regulation adds the requirement for a car ignition interlock system for first-time offenders who were convicted on drunk-driving charges with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent or greater. Those convicted and required to use the system will have to use the ignition interlocks for at least one year.

​The ignition interlock system is a breathalyzer for an individual’s vehicle. It requires the driver to blow into a mouthpiece on the device before starting the vehicle. It will not allow the driver’s car to start if they are drunk.  And these devices are not cheap: to lease an ignition interlock system for one year costs approximately $1,200.00. That’s in addition to otherfines, costs and penalties associated with a DUI conviction. 

Previously the ignition interlock requirement applied only to repeat drunk driving offenders in Pennsylvania. Essentially, this new law means that anyone convicted of a DUI offense with a blood-alcohol content over 0.10 [legal limit is .08] must use the ignition interlock unit. However, it’s worth noting that the interlock requirement does not take effect for 15 months, meaning those convicted now for a first-time DUI will still face the potential of a license suspension rather than the ignition interlock system.

It is also important to recognize that if you are arrested and convicted for a first-time DUI, you may be eligible for the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program, or ARD. If you qualify and satisfy the requirements of ARD, it will leave you without a conviction and you will likely not be affected by this new law requiring an ignition interlock system.

Advocates claim a dual benefit: they argue the new law will protect people on the roads and also allow first-time offenders to avoid the license suspension which comes with a conviction, meaning they can keep their jobs or other responsibilities.

The push for the enactment of this regulation was spurred in 2015 when there were 12,884 alcohol-related crashes in Pennsylvania that caused 306 deaths and 6,042 alcohol-related injuries.

If you are arrested for driving under the influence for the first time, the Criminal Defense Attorneys at Howland Hess O’Connell have extensive experience in assisting clients through these matters.  They will assist you in determining if you qualify for ARD, whether the Program is right for you, and guiding you through the Application process.

ARD may not be right or even available to you, but the best way to determine this is by speaking with a criminal defense attorney equipped to guide you through this process. If any of the above information applies to you, call for a free consultation at (215)-947-6240 or contact us online to schedule a meeting.

Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connell encourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.

As we’ve detailed previously, Southeastern Pennsylvania has taken a strong stance against DUI’s. In a recent article by Chadds Ford Live labeled “PennDOT: DUI Patrols for St. Paddy’s holiday,” the state’s most recent initiative is detailed.
​
According to the PennDOT press release cited in the above article, the crackdown starts TODAY (March 11, 2016) and will run through March 19th. Similar to the New Year’s Eve Crackdown in Bucks and Montgomery Counties, PennDOT’s efforts will largely be in the form of DUI Checkpoints and roving police patrols.  The major difference? This time, the efforts are extending beyond just Bucks and Montgomery Counties. Instead, PennDOT is unleashing a more full-scale DUI task force comprising SEVENTY (70) police departments throughout Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.

The Chadds Ford Live article highlights a feature of Pennsylvania’s DUI Laws which cannot be ignored: For normal drivers of a legal age (those without a special operating privilege), the legal alcohol limit is .08. However, that limit drops down to .04 for commercial drivers and .02 for school bus operators. For all drivers, but especially those in the lower blood alcohol brackets, it is critical to realize that excessive drinking during a late night may still have residual effects the following morning!

To understand the reason for the crackdown, consider the following (albeit somewhat outdated) statistic provided by the Pennsylvania DUI Association: 2 out of every 5 crashes over St. Patrick’s Day weekend in 2013 involved drunken driving, with 31 people killed by drunk drivers.

For many, whether they’re Irish or not, St. Patrick’s Day  and the associated events represents a time to celebrate with family and friends. However, it cannot be overstated how important it is to be smart and safe. Happy (early) St. Patrick’s Day from Howland Hess O’Connell! Please be safe!

Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connell encourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.

Drugged driving is a misunderstood area of law. Parents particularly should be aware of the law and penalties. If you suspect your child might be using marijuana, it is important you and they recognize the  risks associated long after the effects of the drug have worn off.
In Pennsylvania, a person is guilty of driving under the influence or driving after imbibing (“DUI” and “DAI”, respectively) if said individual:

• Drives with any amount of marijuana in his or her blood;
  OR
• Drives with a metabolite of a marijuana in his or her blood;
  
  

Pennsylvania has a per se drugged driving policy, the focus of this article. What does this mean? Essentially, if the state proves a level of one nanogram per milliliter of
marijuana or its metabolites is in your blood while operating a vehicle (*virtually the lowest measurable amount*), the state needs nothing more to establish you are under the influence. Interestingly, the previous level required to prove per se impairment was five nanograms per milliliter, so the current level is a significant reduction.  The prosecutor need not prove you were impaired, but must only establish a baseline level of the drug was found in your system.

Why is this such a frightening proposition? The THC metabolite can remain in a person’s system for several days after an individual ingests marijuana. Therefore, even though you have long come down from the high associated with marijuana use, you are still technically under its influence under the law. Remember again that Pennsylvania does not require a showing of impairment if your blood levels show the requisite level.

The penalties you may face include a one-year license suspension, jail time, and fines up to $5,000.

​

If you have been charged with an alleged DUI or DAI, an attorney skilled in DUI defense can explain your rights and help you prepare the best possible defense. The legal team at Howland Hess O’Connell is available to assist you in handling this matter. A free and confidential consultation is one phone call away at 215-947-6240, or visit us online today.

​Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connellencourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.