I previously wrote about Implied Consent and reasonable grounds, but want to expound upon it further.
One of the rules that developed out of case law that your Chester County DUI lawyer should know is that a police officer does not have to possess reasonable grounds at the time of the initial traffic stop of the driver or when the officer arrests the driver for DUI or an ignition interlock violation. It is sufficient that the officer develops the necessary reasonable grounds at any time during the officer's encounter with the driver. This was the case of Lesa Nornhold v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing. In this case, the Department argued that the trial court erred in finding that the licensee was placed under arrest in her home. The appellate court found that the trooper's act of physically restraining the licensee from going upstairs indicated an intention to subject the licensee to his actual control. In addition, because the legality of an arrest was immaterial in a civil license suspension proceeding, the legality of the licensee's underlying arrest, including the timing of the trooper's accompanying request to submit to chemical testing, was irrelevant to determining the propriety of the license suspension under the implied consent law.
It was sufficient that the trooper developed reasonable grounds to believe the licensee had committed a DUI offense at any point during their encounter. The 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1547(b)(1) requirements were satisfied because the trooper had the requisite reasonable grounds to request that the licensee submit to a breathalyzer test where the trooper observed several indicia of intoxication: the licensee's erratic driving, her unsteady gait, mood swings, bloodshot eyes and an odor of alcohol about her person.
Control of physical movement of a vehicle is also an issue. A driver does not have to be actually driving or operating a vehicle in order for a police officer to posses reasonable grounds to require the driver to submit to chemical testing. The officer may posses the necessary reasonable grounds where the officer believes that the driver was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. This is the case of COMMONWEALTH Of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING v. Garry E. PAIGE, where a police officer found appellant motorist slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle with the key in the ignition and the parking lights on. The police officer knocked on the window numerous times before he was able to wake appellant. Appellant admitted that he had been drinking, emitted a strong odor of alcohol, was argumentative, refused field sobriety tests, and even refused a taxi ride home. Appellee Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing suspended appellant's driving privilege for one year due to his failure to submit to chemical testing pursuant to Implied Consent Law.