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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. KENNETH H. WALL (01/23/87)

decided: January 23, 1987.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, APPELLANT
v.
KENNETH H. WALL, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kenneth H. Wall, No. 82-2145.

COUNSEL

Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him, Michael R. Deckman, Deputy Chief Counsel, Spencer A. Manthorpe, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

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

Author: Palladino

[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 323]

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County which sustained the appeal of Kenneth H. Wall (Appellee) from DOT's suspension of his driver's license. We reverse.

[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 324]

On January 25, 1982, DOT suspended Appellee's license for a period of six months pursuant to the mandatory suspension provision in Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b), for refusing to take a breathalyzer test.*fn1 Under this provision, DOT has the burden of proving that the driver: (1) was placed under arrest for violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731 (driving under the influence of alcohol); (2) was requested to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was informed that his operating privileges would be revoked upon refusal to submit to chemical testing. 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b).

Appellee does not contest the fact that he was arrested for driving under the influence, nor does he deny that he was requested to submit to a breathalyzer and warned that his failure to do so would result in suspension of his operating privileges.

Appellee's only contention, sustained by the trial court, is that his extreme intoxication made a knowing and voluntary refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test impossible. At the de novo hearing, Appellee's attorney examined the arresting officer, who was called as a hostile witness, with regard to his police report on the night of the arrest:

Q: You are the author of that report?

A: That's my signature on there, yes.

Q: Could you read from it, please, on the end of ...


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.