Chester County Implied Consent - 3rd Party Information

If a cop gets a call that a person is swerving or DUI, is that justifiable under the Implied Consent rule?  Yes.  A police officer may be able to formulate reasonable grounds without any witness having observed the driver actually operating a vehicle and it is imperative that your Chester County DUI lawyer know this.  This comes from Patterson v. Commonwealth, 138 Pa. Commw. 292 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).  In that case, the court held that the police officer had reasonable grounds to conclude that appellant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated prior to making the arrest, as a witness identified defendant as the driver, and the police officer testified that driver had a strong odor of alcohol.

Also, hearsay rules are thrown out the door in these administrative appeals, much to the tremendous distaste of any lawyer who respects the rules of evidence, so an officer can testify to what he was told, rather than having the original person who made the statement testify.  See Menosky v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. Commw. 464 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988) for more information.  

Does an Officer Have to Be Correct?

Even if a police officer later turns out to be incorrect that a person was not riving under the influence or in violation of the ignition interlock statutes, it does not overturn the officer's reasonable grounds at the time of the chemical test request.  The case supporting this standard is Menosky v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. Commw. 464 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).  In this case, appellant licensee's van was found at the scene of an accident. Officers discovered that appellant was the owner of the van and went to his home to question him. Once at his home, the officers arrested him for drunk driving and appellant refused to take a breathalyzer. The department of transportation suspended his license pursuant to 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1547(b). The trial court upheld the department's action. 

On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person was able to conclude that appellant was driving while intoxicated. There was testimony that only 15 minutes transpired from the time the police received the radio call advising them of the accident until they interviewed appellant at his home. The individual who telephoned the police to report the accident stated that the man involved in the accident appeared to be intoxicated. Appellee state properly offered the individual who reported the accident's out-of-court statement to explain why a police officer arrested appellant. The officer personally observed appellant's condition at his home and placed him under arrest.

Such a standard is infuriating.  It allows a cop to be dead wrong, but with no recourse.  Also, it allows an officer or a trooper to be dishonest.