Keenan v. Com., Dept. of Transp

7 Citing cases

  1. Velkoff v. Commonwealth, Dep't. of Transp.

    23 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 5, 2024)

    , 657 A.2d 134, 136 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

  2. Celento v. Pa. Dep't of Transp.

    250 A.3d 549 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2021)

    Such conduct may include asking repeated questions, delaying the testing with stalling tactics, and requesting to read the implied consent form. See, e.g. , McKenna , 72 A.3d at 300-01 (repetitive questioning in the hospital deemed a refusal); Harris (repeatedly requesting to read DL-26 form deemed refusal); Keenan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing , 657 A.2d 134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (questioning deemed a refusal). The circumstances in this case are similar to those in Harris where this Court affirmed the trial court's order upholding the suspension based on a refusal of chemical testing when the licensee repeatedly requested to read the warning for himself.

  3. Park v. Commonwealth

    178 A.3d 274 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2018)   Cited 30 times

    Repeated questioning may also be deemed a refusal by conduct. Keenan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 657 A.2d 134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Further, a motorist's self-serving testimony that she was incapable of providing a knowing and conscious refusal of a chemical test is insufficient to meet her burden of proving incapacity.

  4. Bartolucci v. Commonwealth

    No. 74 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Dec. 21, 2017)

    Hirsch v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 702 A.2d 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Repeated questioning may also be deemed a refusal by conduct. Keenan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 657 A.2d 134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). The issue of whether a licensee's refusal was knowing and conscious is a question of fact. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O'Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989).

  5. Johnson v. Commonwealth

    No. 177 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 7, 2014)

    In short, neither Johnson's continued questioning regarding his performance on the field sobriety tests nor his good faith in submitting to those tests negate his prior refusal to submit to chemical testing after he was read the implied consent warnings. See also Yourick v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 341, 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (that a particular motorist hearing the warning may question its interpretation is not sufficient basis for stating her refusal was not knowing or conscious); Keenan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 657 A2d 134, 136 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (licensee's questions concerning the effects of the chemical tests on his commercial driver's license did not evince the type of confusion which would negate a refusal to submit to chemical testing); Flickinger v. Dep't of Transp., 547 A.2d 476, 477 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (by equivocating or questioning the need for a second test, licensee's actions fell short of the unqualified, unequivocal consent required by Section 1547 of the Code).

  6. Donofrio v. Commonwealth

    No. 309 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 23, 2011)

    Gregro v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 987 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Mumma, 468 A.2d 891 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). Significantly, a licensee's conduct may constitute a refusal to submit to testing. Quick v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 915 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Keenan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 657 A.2d 134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (licensee's repeated questioning deemed a refusal). Further, failure to submit a sufficient breath sample "is a refusal per se unless the licensee can establish that the failure was due to physical inability unrelated to ingestion of alcohol...." Spera v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 817 A.2d 1236, 1240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

  7. Hudson v. Com

    830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 60 times

    The issue of whether a motorist's conduct constitutes a refusal to submit to chemical testing is a question of law to be determined based on the facts found by the trial court. Keenan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 657 A.2d 134 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995). It is well-settled that anything less than an unqualified, unequivocal assent constitutes a refusal under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code. Dep't of Transp. v. Renwick, 543 Pa. 122, 669 A.2d 934 (1996).