In Commonwealth v. Hill, the PA Supreme Court held that the defendant’s separate sentences for his convictions of two counts of 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1) and 3804(c)(1), based on a single criminal act, were a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Section 3802 is entitled “Driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance.” 75 … Read more
The defendant in Commonwealth v. Brown argued that the trial court erred when it imposed a sentence above the mandatory minimum for DUI, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(2), an ungraded misdemeanor and his first such offense in ten years. The PA Superior Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion when … Read more
In State v. Faber, the Appellate Division remanded, holding that the lower court failed to reference either the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) or the necessity of an ignition interlock device in it’s sentencing order.
In Commonwealth v. Gaston, the defendant’s DUI prosecution was in the pretrial stage when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Birchfield v. North Dakota. The defendant moved to suppress his blood draw based on Birchfield, but the Superior Court held that the evidence need not be suppressed because the defendant consented to the … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Smith, the Superior Court held that a police officer had probable cause to stop the defendant after the officer observed him traveling approximately 70 mph on a highway with a speed limit of 55 mph.
The Superior Court vacated the defendant’s convictions for homicide by vehicle, DUI, and related charges. Citing Birchfield, the Court ruled that the police unlawfully obtained the defendant’s blood test results from the hospital when the authorities did so without a warrant.
In Commonwealth v. Hajdarevic, the Superior Court held that the Confrontation Clause applies to evidence presented by the Commonwealth to establish the time of a blood draw in a DUI case because, under Section 3802 of the Motor Vehicles Code, the Commonwealth is required to prove that the defendant’s blood alcohol content within two hours … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Wolfel, which was an interlocutory appeal, the PA Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and ruled, by failing to challenge the suppression court’s explicit invocation of that provision before the Superior Court, the Commonwealth waived its challenge to the defendant’s failure to raise a claim under Article I, Section 8.
After a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of metabolites of a controlled substance (DUI-metabolite). He appealed and argued the DUI statute should be read so as to not criminalize driving with the metabolite of a medically prescribed controlled substance since the legislature did not criminalize driving under the influence of the … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Pammer, the Superior Court dismissed a DUI prosecution because the Commonwealth failed to comply with the compulsory joinder rule found in 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. The defendant had been charged with traffic offenses stemming from the same incident as the DWI charge and pled to summonses for those traffic offenses before a magisterial … Read more