Sentle v. Commonwealth

6 Citing cases

  1. Com., Department of Transp. v. O'Connell

    521 Pa. 242 (Pa. 1989)   Cited 407 times
    Holding that where an arrestee asks to speak to or call an attorney, or anyone else, when requested to take a breathalyzer test, law enforcement officers must, in addition to telling an arrestee that his license will be suspended for one year if he refuses to take a breathalyzer test, instruct the arrestee that such rights are inapplicable to the breathalyzer test and that the arrestee does not have the right to consult with an attorney or anyone else prior to taking the test

    , 529 A.2d 44 (1987); Appeal of Kilcullen, 103 Pa. Commw. 521, 520 A.2d 947 (1987); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Turner, 100 Pa. Commw. 539, 515 A.2d 96 (1986); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Bartelt, 94 Pa. Commw. 198, 503 A.2d 103 (1986); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Doherty, 88 Pa. Commw. 482, 490 A.2d 481 (1985); King v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 81 Pa. Commw. 177, 472 A.2d 1196 (1984); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Mumma, 79 Pa. Commw. 108, 468 A.2d 891 (1983); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Miele, 75 Pa. Commw. 130, 461 A.2d 359 (1983); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Wroblewski, 65 Pa. Commw. 333, 442 A.2d 407 (1982); Wilson v. Commonwealth, 53 Pa. Commw. 342, 417 A.2d 867 (1980); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Herman, 49 Pa. Commw. 201, 410 A.2d 1296 (1980); Sentle v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa. Commw. 479, 410 A.2d 903 (1980); Weitzel Appeal, 41 Pa. Commw. 235, 400 A.2d 646 (1979); Ford v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 45 Pa. Commw. 268, 406 A.2d 240 (1979); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O'Rourke, 25 Pa. Commw. 580, 361 A.2d 496 (1976); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cannon, 4 Pa. Commw. 119, 286 A.2d 24 (1972). This state of affairs is unacceptable because it is fraught with pitfalls for the arrestee who is not trained to recognize the difference between a civil or criminal investigation and becomes a source of accusation of manipulation by the police over confused individuals who are suspected of having dulled senses.

  2. Whisenhunt v. Dept. of Public Safety

    746 P.2d 1298 (Alaska 1987)   Cited 18 times
    Analyzing rationale for exclusion in statutory context

    Cases excluding the evidence include Prideaux v. State, 310 Minn. 405, 247 N.W.2d 385 (1976); Gooch v. Spradling, 523 S.W.2d 861 (Mo.App. 1975); Price v. North Carolina Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 36 N.C. App. 698, 245 S.E.2d 518 (1978); Raine v. Curry, 45 Ohio App.2d 155, 341 N.E.2d 606 (1975); Fuller v. State, Dep't of Transp., 275 N.W.2d 410 (Iowa 1979); Moore v. Motor Vehicles Div., 293 Or. 715, 652 P.2d 794, 799 (1982). Cases which do not employ an exclusionary rule include Haas v. State, Dep't of Licensing, 31 Wn. App. 334, 641 P.2d 717 (1982); Westmoreland v. Chapman, 268 Cal.App.2d 1, 74 Cal.Rptr. 363 (1968); State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378, 537 P.2d 1187 (1975); Steward v. State, 436 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.App. 1982); Winter v. Peterson, 208 Neb. 785, 305 N.W.2d 803 (1981); Sentle v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa.Cmwlth. 479, 410 A.2d 903 (1980); Blow v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, 83 S.D. 628, 164 N.W.2d 351 (1969); State v. Berry, 165 W. Va. 783, 271 S.E.2d 776 (1980); State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis.2d 191, 289 N.W.2d 828 (1980). These cases, however, seem to be premised primarily on a formal distinction between criminal and civil proceedings.

  3. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Korchak

    506 Pa. 52 (Pa. 1984)   Cited 35 times

    It has been consistently held that there is no constitutional or statutory right for the arrested operator to confer with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to the chemical test. Morris Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 218 Pa. Super. 347, 280 A.2d 658 (1971); Herbert v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa. Commw. 28, 460 A.2d 920 (1983); Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Wroblewski, 65 Pa. Commw. 333, 442 A.2d 407 (1982); Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Herman, 49 Pa. Commw. 201, 410 A.2d 1296 (1980); Sentle v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa. Commw. 479, 410 A.2d 903 (1980); Weitzel Appeal, 41 Pa. Commw. 235, 400 A.2d 646 (1979); Department of Transportation v. Cannon, 4 Pa. Commw. 119, 286 A.2d 24 (1972). Section 1547(a) provides:

  4. Kilcullen Appeal

    520 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1987)   Cited 9 times

    Miele v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa. Commw. 130, 461 A.2d 359 (1983). Just as Appellant has no right to confer with an attorney prior to making a decision whether or not to assent to an officer's request to submit to a chemical test, see e.g. Sentle v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa. Commw. 479, 410 A.2d 903 (1980), he has no right to consult with a parent or other relative prior to making such a decision. Appellant's admitted failure to make a decision in response to the officers' requests constitutes a refusal under 75 Pa. C. S. § 1547.

  5. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Doherty

    88 Pa. Commw. 482 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 9 times
    Discerning no refusal from defendant's mere question about propriety of speaking to lawyer before submitting to breathalyzer; question did “not evidence an attempt to debate, maneuver or negotiate the question of submission to the test”

    Invariably the licensee wanted to consult his lawyer or have one present before submitting to the breathalyzer test. See Miele v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa. Commw. 130, 461 A.2d 359 (1983), Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Wroblewski, 65 Pa. Commw. 333, 442 A.2d 407 (1982); Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Herman, 49 Pa. Commw. 201, 410 A.2d 1296 (1980); Sentle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 48 Pa. Commw. 479, 410 A.2d 903 (1980); Weitzel Appeal, 41 Pa. Commw. 235, 400 A.2d 646 (1979); and Department of Transportation v. Cannon, 4 Pa. Commw. 119, 286 A.2d 24 (1972). In each case, this conditioned response was construed to be a refusal which justified the suspension of a driver's license.

  6. Miele v. Commonwealth

    75 Pa. Commw. 130 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)   Cited 16 times
    Responding to request to take test by asking to see attorney held refusal

    Weitzel Appeal, 41 Pa. Commw. 235, 236-37, 400 A.2d 646, 647 (1979). See also Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Wroblewski, 65 Pa. Commw. 333, 335, 442 A.2d 407, 408 (1982); Sentle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 48 Pa. Commw. 479, 480, 410 A.2d 903, 903 (1980). "[W]e have consistently defined a refusal as anything substantially short of an unqualified unequivocal assent to an officer's request to the arrested motorist."