Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kevin Doolin, No. SA 1392 of 1985.
William S. Hays, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him, Spencer A. Manthorpe, Chief Counsel, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins. President Judge Crumlish, Jr., dissents.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 297]
Kevin Doolin (appellant) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) which dismissed his appeal of a Department of Transportation (DOT) order suspending his operator's license for a period of one year pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1547(b)(1) (suspension for refusal to submit to chemical testing).
On July 11, 1985, the appellant was stopped by a West View Borough police officer for a traffic violation.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 298]
Subsequently, the appellant failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Section 3731(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 3731(a)(1). Thereafter, he was transported to the police station where the arresting officer read to him a form entitled "Important Notice to Vehicle Operator."*fn1 Contained therein was a paragraph outlining the consequences of a refusal to submit to testing for blood alcohol content. The notice reads: "if you refuse this testing, (1) you will still be charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance, (2) you will be subjected to a One Year Suspension of your Operating Privileges, . . . ."*fn2
The arresting officer requested that the appellant take a blood sample test but this request was refused. He then asked the appellant to submit to a urine sample test, which was also refused. After contacting his attorney, the appellant requested a breathalyzer test. Thereafter, DOT suspended his operating privileges. The appellant appealed the suspension and after a de novo hearing, the trial court dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals the order of the trial court.
On appeal, the appellant raises two issues. He first contends that the arresting officer failed to give him a precisely enunciated warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to testing of his blood and that, therefore, his "refusal" to submit to testing must be negated.*fn3
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 299]
Considering the record before us and the recent decision of this Court in the case of Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 113 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1, ...