and DL-27 PENNDOT forms have been updated May 2016. Here are the
links to the new forms - DL-26 and
V. Weaver August 2013
No 1870 MDA Superior Ct.
responded to a dispatch detailing erratic driving. Weaver acted
sluggish, but did not display indicia of alcohol consumption. Weaver’s
pupils were constricted, however, and the trooper asked him to exit
his vehicle. Weaver’s leg was injured and the trooper chose
to administer only the HGN test. The trooper noted “extensive”
nystagmus. He stated the HGN was the “primary basis”
for the arrest decision. Judge Bowes, writing for a unanimous panel,
acknowledged the cases dealing with HGN at trial. She then noted
the evidentiary difference between determining probable cause and
adjudicating guilt. She held the suppression court had properly
admitted the trooper’s HGN testimony: “[o]fficer Hunter,
who was trained in the administration of the HGN test, was permitted
to rely on his observations gained from that procedure to support
his conclusion that Appellant was driving under the influence of
a controlled substance.” Com. V. Weaver, No. 1870 MDA August
28, 2013, 2013 PA Super 245
changes under the Transportation law
75 Section 1332
Motorcycle registration plates may be ordered to have the characters
displayed vertically so that plate can be mounted vertically.
75 Section 3111
Obedience to traffic-control devices changes the fine from $25.00
to $150.0 but has no surcharges under Title 75 Section 6506 and
Title 42 Section 1725.1.
75 Section 1786 D 1.1
As owner whose registration has been suspended under this section
may pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to PENNDOT to restore their registration
earlier once they have furnished proof of financial responsibility.
Breath Testing Concerns, Commonwealth v Schildt:
The suppression of the blood alcohol concentration measurement of
an Intoxilyzer 5000EN by a Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas
Judge has created much discussion and some confusion regarding the
impact of the ruling. An examination of the judge’s written
opinion reveals the immediate legal impact is clearly stated that
in Dauphin County measurements of blood alcohol concentration above
0.15 using an Intoxilizer 5000EN are inadmissible. The written opinion
does editorialize on several other areas of breath testing which
could well be an indication of issues on which the judge would like
the court to rule but those discussions are not part of the binding
order. Also, already, defense attorneys are attempting to solicit
other county courts to accept the ruling and order in favor of suppression.
What is unique regarding this ruling is that instead of challenging
the reliability of a specific serial numbered instrument or the
procedures used by the operator; this ruling questions the accuracy
of the scientific principle this make and model instrument uses
to calculate the blood alcohol concentration from the breath sample.
It could be said it takes much courage to reject a proven scientific
measurement practice accepted in most, if not all, modern industrialize
countries based on the hypotheses presented.