Zerbe v. Com

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Spring

    204 Wis. 2d 343 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 4 times
    In Spring it was necessary for the court to analyze the contents of the consent form to determine whether it misinformed or misled the suspect, since the suspect refused to sign the form because of his view of its contents.

    The same is true in cases from other jurisdictions. See Maffei v. Commonwealth, 416 A.2d 1167, 1169 (Pa.Commw. Ct. 1980); Commonwealth v. Renwick, 669 A.2d 934, 938-39 (Pa. 1996); Zerbe v. Commonwealth, 676 A.2d 294, 297 (Pa.Commw. Ct. 1996); Butler v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 171 Cal.Rptr. 525, 526-27 (Cal.Ct.App. 1981); Carrey v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 228 Cal.Rptr. 705, 708-09 (Cal.Ct.App. 1986); Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 467 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Ky. 1971); Lynch v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 498 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993); Wofford v. Director of Revenue, 868 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993).

  2. Petrocsko v. Com., Dept. of Transp

    745 A.2d 714 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Being required to sign hospital consent form

    Brown, ___ A.2d. at ___ n. 3, 1999 WL 722966 at *6 n. 3 (wherein we stated that "Accordingly, Conrad is again good law."). Accord Zerbe v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 676 A.2d 294, 297 n. 9 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). there is no evidence to suggest that Licensee would not have completed the test but for this condition.

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

    738 A.2d 71 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 5 times
    Having to leave child at police station to go to hospital to get blood drawn

    Accordingly, Conrad is again good law. See Zerbe v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 676 A.2d 294, n. 9 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). In the instant case, Licensee agreed two times to submit to blood testing as requested by Officer Mercadante. But, the officer conditioned Licensee's test on leaving her four year old child at the police station with strangers while she was taken to the hospital to have blood drawn.

  4. Todd v. Com., Dept. of Transp

    701 A.2d 1384 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1997)

    "Whether a licensee's conduct, as found by the trial court, constitutes a refusal is a question of law." Zerbe v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 676 A.2d 294, 296 (Pa.Commw. 1996). "It is well-settled that anything substantially less than an unqualified, unequivocal assent to a breath test constitutes a refusal pursuant to Section 1547."

  5. State v. Awkward

    DOCKET NO. A-2770-12T1 (App. Div. Apr. 24, 2015)

    The trial court found "all of the state's witnesses to be credible" in their testimony concerning defendant's oral consent. If anything, therefore, refusal to sign the consent form is further evidence defendant was willing and able to resist coercion. See Zerbe v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 676 A.2d 294, 296 (Pa. Commw. 1996) (after oral consent, refusal to sign a hospital chemical test form on a DUI was not withdrawal of consent); Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 359, 360-61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) (given credible state witnesses, consent was valid notwithstanding the defendant's insistence that he neither orally consented, nor signed the consent form).