Appealed From No. S.A. 0227 of 1996. Common Pleas Court of the County of Allegheny. Judge ROSS.
Before: Honorable Bernard L. McGINLEY, Judge, Honorable Jim Flaherty, Judge, Honorable Jess S. Jiuliante, Senior Judge. Opinion BY Judge McGINLEY.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcginley
OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) that sustained the appeal of Edward Horton (Horton) from a one-year suspension of his operating privilege pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(1). *fn1
On December 3, 1995, University of Pittsburgh Police Sergeant Vernon Barkley (Sgt. Barkley) observed a green Dodge Ram Charger fail to stop at a red traffic light located at the intersection of Bigelow Boulevard and Forbes Avenue in the City of Pittsburgh. Sgt. Barkley stopped the vehicle on Bouquet Street. Sgt. Barley placed Horton under arrest for driving under the influence after observing his demeanor and detecting the odor of alcohol on his breath. Horton was informed that his refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in the suspension of his operating privilege for one year. Horton refused to submit to chemical testing. By official noticed dated January 31, 1996, DOT informed Horton that his operating privilege was to be suspended for one year as the result of his refusal to submit to chemical testing on December 3, 1995. Horton appealed his suspension to the trial court.
At a de novo hearing, Horton challenged the suspension, contending that Sgt. Barkley did not have the authority to arrest him and any refusal to submit to chemical testing could not be the basis for his suspension. The trial court sustained Horton's appeal, concluding:
The record indicated that the arrest was made by a privately employed security officer on a public roadway rather than on property owned by the officer's employer. We agreed with the Defendant that the arrest was therefore improper and so rendered the request for submission to chemical testing also improper and the refusal of that request of no consequence.
Opinion of the Trial Court, September 30, 1996, at 1.
On appeal DOT contends that the trial court erred when it determined that a University of Pittsburgh Police Officer had no authority to effectuate an arrest under the Code and that the arrest of Horton for driving under the influence was illegal. *fn2
In cases involving the suspension of a driver's license for refusal to submit to chemical testing, DOT must establish: 1) that the licensee was placed under arrest for driving under the influence; 2) that he was requested to submit to chemical testing; 3) that he was informed that a refusal to submit to such testing would result in a suspension of his operating privileges; and 4) that the licensee refused to submit to the test. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Pestock, 136 Pa. Commw. 694, 584 A.2d 1075 (Pa. Commw. 1990), appeal denied, 528 Pa. 619, 596 A.2d 801 (1991).
Initially, DOT contends that because the University of Pittsburgh is a "state-related" institution the campus police are "police officers" and are authorized to make arrests pursuant to Section 2416 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (Code) *fn3, 71 P.S. § 646.
There is no dispute that the University of Pittsburgh is a "state-related" institution. *fn4 Section 2 of the College and University Act, 24 P.S. § 2505-2 provides that "campus police" are "employees of an institution of higher education who exercise powers of arrest under authority of law or ordinance." Section 2416 of the Code, 71 P.S. § 646 provides:
The . . . Campus Police of all State colleges and universities, State aided or related colleges and universities . . . shall have ...