HOWLAND, HESS, GUINAN, TORPEY, CASSIDY, O'CONNELL & BIRNBAUM, LLP
215-947-6240
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Business & Corporate Law
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Construction Law & Litigation
    • Criminal Defense >
      • License Suspension
      • D.U.I. >
        • General Information
        • Blood Alcohol Content
        • Little Known Facts
        • Penalties
    • Elder Law
    • Estate Administration, Litigation & Will Contests
    • Family Law >
      • Custody and Visitation
      • Child Support
      • Spousal Support/Alimony
      • Divorce and Equitable Distribution
    • Personal Injury
    • Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use
    • Wills & Trusts, Estate & Tax Planning
    • Worker's Compensation
  • About Our Firm
  • Our Attorneys
    • William J. Benz
    • David W. Birnbaum
    • Michael W. Cassidy
    • Allyssa C. Embery-Zimmaro
    • Thomas M. Guinan
    • Bruce D. Hess
    • John R. Howland
    • Dennis R. Meakim
    • George P. O'Connell
    • Richard I. Torpey
    • Remembering Robert G. Hess
    • Our Personnel
  • Client Resources
    • Blog
    • News & Events
  • Contact Us

Ripple of Supreme Court DUI Decision Causes Waves in Pennsylvania

9/8/2016

0 Comments

 
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.
0 Comments

Pennsylvania Enacts New DUI Regulations

6/15/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture

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.

0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    About Howland Hess O'Connell
    About Us
    Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition
    Act 33
    Age
    Anti-Texting Law
    Arbitration
    ARD
    Ban The Box
    Business
    Business Entity Sued
    Business Law
    Civil
    Color
    Contract Law
    Contractor Subcontractor
    Corporate Law
    Criminal Defense
    Criminal Law
    Criminal Records
    Drowsy Driving
    DUI
    DUI Checkpoint
    DUI Crackdown
    Education Law
    Elder Law
    Employee
    Employer
    Employment Discrimination
    Employment Law
    Environmental Protection
    Estate Planning
    Expungement
    First Time Offender
    Howland Hess O'Connell
    Identity Theft
    Ignition Interlock System
    License Suspension
    Local News
    Motor Vehicle
    Motor Vehicle Accident
    National Origin
    Neighbor Disputes
    Operation Orange Squeeze
    Penndot
    Pennsylvania DUI
    Power Of Attorney
    Property Law
    Race
    Real Estate Transaction
    Religion
    Sealing
    Sex
    Social Security
    Social Security Disability
    SSDI
    Traffic Violation
    Underage Drinking
    Underage DUI
    Workers' Compensation

    RSS Feed

The law office of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP is located in Huntingdon Valley, Southeastern Pennsylvania, and serves clients in Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County and Philadelphia County, including the towns of: Abington, Ambler, Blue Bell, Cheltenham, Conshohocken, Doylestown, Elkins Park, Glenside, Hatboro, Hilltown, Horsham, Huntingdon Valley, Jenkintown, King of Prussia, Lansdale Springfield, Montgomeryville, New Britain, Norristown, Plymouth Meeting, Upper Dublin, Upper Moreland, Warminster, Warrington and Willow Grove.

The attorneys at Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP also serve clients throughout Southern New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, and Salem County.

Practice Areas

Business & Corporate Law
Commercial Litigation
Construction Law & Litigation​
Criminal Defense
D.U.I.
Elder Law
Estate Administration, Litigation and Will Contests
Family Law
License Suspension
Personal Injury
Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use
Wills & Trusts, Estate & Tax Planning
Worker's Compensation

Sitemap

Home
Practice Areas
About Our Firm
Our Attorneys
Resources
Newsletters
News & Events
Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact us Today!

Connect with Us

Our Attorneys

William J. Benz​
David W. Birnbaum
Michael W. Cassidy
Allyssa C. Embery-Zimmaro
Thomas M. Guinan
Bruce D. Hess
John R. Howland
Dennis R. Meakim
George P. O'Connell
Richard I. Torpey
Remembering Robert G. Hess

Find Us - Directions

Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP.
2444 Huntingdon Pike
Bethayres, PA 19006

Phone: 215-947-6240
Fax: 215-947-6254

info@howlandhess.com
Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer.
Powered by Toodles Creative Media