Weaver v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Weaver v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) A. King v. Commonwealth of PA, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Garner, 879 A.2d at 330 -31 (quoting Weaver v. Dep’t. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), affirmed, 912 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2006)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) K. Coogan v. Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s holding that a warning is legally sufficient if it informs the licensee that refusing a request for chemical testing means that [she] ‘will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation.’ Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Weaver, [ 912 A.2d 259, 261 (Pa. 2006)] [(Weaver II)] citing Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) [(Weaver I)].FN6 FN6.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) P.B. Griffith v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
Our Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s holding that a warning is legally sufficient if it informs the licensee that refusing a request for chemical testing means that he “will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation.” Weaver, 912 A.2d at 261 (citing Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)). 10 Here, Licensee conceded Officer summarized the consequences of refusal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yourick v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s holding that a warning is legally sufficient if it informs the licensee that refusing a request for chemical testing means that he/she “will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation.” Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Weaver, 590 Pa. 188, 191 , 912 A.2d 259, 261 (2006), citing Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). 6 The DL-26 Form did just that.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quigley v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (2×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s holding that a warning is legally sufficient if it informs the licensee that refusing a request for chemical testing means that he/she “will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation.” Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Weaver, 590 Pa. 188, 191 , 912 A.2d 259, 261 (2006), citing Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). 6 The DL-26 Form did just that.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Homer
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
Our Supreme Court reiterated, “It is not the duty of the police to explain the various sanctions available under a given law to an arrestee to give that individual an opportunity to decide whether it is worth it to violate that law.” Id., at 197 , 912 A.2d at 265 (citing Weaver v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garner v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2005 · confidence medium
Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) In an attempt to further support common pleas’ ruling, Garner asserts the alternate theory that paragraphs three and four of the warning work together to generate confusion.
discussed Cited "see" R.A. Fye, Sr. v. Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 912 A.2d 259 (Pa. 2006) (verbiage on DL-26 form sufficient to inform a licensee of the implied consent law and to base a decision as to whether to submit to chemical testing); Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 969 A.2d 30, 32 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009 (en banc) (where a licensee interrupted the officer’s oral recital of warnings and asked to read them himself, the written copy was sufficient to constitute an informed refusal). 9 to his limited reading capacity).
discussed Cited "see" In re: M.S.
D.C. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 1206 (holding that "the criminal conduct on which each [ofthe defendant`s] conviction[s] was predicated represented a discrete act for which [the defendant] could be punished separately"). 16 indecent acts with children"` at least where applying the pre-existing legal presumption that a child cannot consent to sexual contact 873 A.2d at 1 105 (citing Rep. on Bill 10-87 at 4)." As a result. misdemeanor sexual abuse is a ‘“lesser- included offense" of second-degree child sexual abuse, because one cannot commit second-degree child sexual abuse without committing misdemeanor sexual …
discussed Cited "see" P. Gilpatrick v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weaver v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driving Licensing, 873 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 912 A.2d 259 (Pa. 2006) (verbiage on DL-26 form 4 Pursuant to the officer’s credible testimony, Licensee’s ability to read and understand the written word is evident from his ability to read and abide by the officer’s written instructions to the field sobriety tests.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael J. WEAVER, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
May 3, 2005.
873 A.2d 1
Thomas J. Wagner, West Chester, for appellant., Timothy P. Wile, Asst. Counsel In-Charge and Harold H. Cramer, Asst. Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Colins, Pellegrini, Kelley.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

OPINION BY

President Judge COLINS.

Michael J. Weaver (Weaver) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County that denied his appeal of the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing’s (Department) suspension of his operating privileges pursuant to Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 C.S. § 1547(b)(2), [1] relating to chemical test refusal. We affirm the trial court.

[*2] On May 1, 2004, Officer David C. Boyer of the Phoenixville Police Department arrested Weaver for driving under the influence of alcohol. At the hearing in this matter, Officer Boyer testified that, after informing Weaver that he was under arrest and transporting him to Phoenixville Hospital, he read to Weaver the warning on the Implied Consent Form, DL-26, and requested that Weaver submit to a blood test. Weaver, he testified, said nothing so he again read to him from the form. Weaver then said that he needed time to think it over. Boyer then read to Weaver from the form a third time, and this time Weaver informed Officer Boyer that he would refuse the test. Officer Boyer then charged Weaver with refusing a chemical test, and the Department suspended Weaver’s operating privileges. Weaver appealed his suspension to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, which denied the appeal. This appeal followed.

The question we are asked to determine is whether the implied consent, warnings contained on Implied Consent Form, DL-26, satisfy the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2). [2]

Weaver argues that since the General Assembly added subparagraph (ii) to Section 1547(b)(2) but did not, at the same time change the wording of the Implied Consent Form to include the new penalties contained in the new sections referenced in subparagraph (ii), the warning contained there is no longer valid because the form “only informs the arrestees of the minimum jail sentence and fines for a first offense, greatly minimizing, in the eyes of a repeat offender arrestee the consequences of refusing the test, thereby defeating the purpose of the statute.” (Weaver’s brief at p. 6). We reject this argument. It is not the duty of the police to explain the various sanctions available under a given law to an arrestee to give that individual an opportunity to decide whether it is worth it to violate that law. It is sufficient for the police to inform a motorist that he or she will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation if he or she should fail to accede to the officer’s request for a chemical test. The verbiage on form DL-26 informs a motorist that he or she will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation if he or she should fail to accede to the officer’s request for a chemical test; that is sufficient information upon which to base a decision as to whether or not to submit to chemical testing. Officer Boyer read the warnings on the Implied Consent Form to Weaver three times. Weaver specifically refused chemical testing.

Accordingly, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County in this matter is affirmed.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of March 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in this matter is AFFIRMED, and the suspension of Appellant Weaver’s operating privilege is REINSTATED.

1

. Section 1547(b)(2) provides, in pertinent part,

(2) It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that:
(i) the person’s operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing; and
[*2] (ii) upon conviction, plea or adjudication of delinquency for violating section 3802(a), the person will be subject to the penalties provided in section 3804(c) (relating to penalties).
2

. Our standard of review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, whether the trial court committed an error of law, or whether it abused its discretion. Trout v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 764 A.2d 701 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 572 Pa. 718, 813 A.2d 848 (2002).