In Commonwealth v. Clemens, the Pennsylvania Superior Court was asked to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for DUI-General Impairment and Resisting Arrest. Given the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the opinion covered the facts in great detail. The Court held that, even though the officers never explicitly stated to Clements that he was “under arrest,” it nonetheless would “be clear to a reasonable person that they” were under arrest. The Court then distinguished its 2017 en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Gause and held that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove Clemens drove his car while intoxicated.