Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAM EDWARD JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/03/86)

decided: June 3, 1986.

WILLIAM EDWARD JACKSON, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William Edward Jackson, No. SA 254 of 1983.

COUNSEL

Robert B. Marcus, for appellant.

Michael R. Deckman, Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Spencer A. Manthorpe, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellee.

Judges Craig, Doyle, and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 602]

This is an appeal by William Edward Jackson (Licensee) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County upholding the action of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in suspending for one year Licensee's operating privileges and dismissing his appeal. The trial court found that Licensee "was properly

[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 603]

    requested to undertake a breathalyzer examination [pursuant to Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. ยง 1547(b)(2)] and refused to do so." Thus, it determined that the suspension action was proper.

The record discloses that on March 18, 1983 Licensee's automobile collided with a bus in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. City police, believing that Licensee had been operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol, arrested Licensee and transported him to a place where a breathalyzer test could be administered. Licensee did not submit to the examination. Whether Licensee was properly warned in accordance with Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code that his refusal to submit to the test would result in the suspension of his operating privileges is the narrow issue before us now.*fn1 Section 1547(b)(2) places a duty upon the officer "to inform the person that the person's operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing."

The relevant testimony of the officer who requested that licensee take the examination is as follows:

Q. Did you, Officer, request Mr. Jackson to take the Breathalyzer test?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you inform him of any consequences of refusing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.