Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Wysockigreen2 sentences2018This Court has stated that the reasons for the initial stop are irrelevant; “[a]n illegal arrest is not an impediment to a license suspension for refusing a chemical blood test.” Kachurak v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 913 A.2d 982, 986 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); see also Department of Transportation v. Wysocki, 535 A.2d 77, 79 (Pa. 1987). 8 For all of these reasons, the trial court’s order is reversed. ______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Senior Judge Colins dissents. 9 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Angela Swyers : : v. 2016An illegal arrest is not an impediment to a license suspension for refusing a chemical blood test." [ Dep't of Transp. v.] Wysocki , ... [ 517 Pa. 175 ] 535 A.2d [77,] ... 79 [ (Pa.1987) ]. | 2 | 4 |
Kachurak v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen2 sentences2018This Court has stated that the reasons for the initial stop are irrelevant; “[a]n illegal arrest is not an impediment to a license suspension for refusing a chemical blood test.” Kachurak v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 913 A.2d 982, 986 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); see also Department of Transportation v. Wysocki, 535 A.2d 77, 79 (Pa. 1987). 8 For all of these reasons, the trial court’s order is reversed. ______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Senior Judge Colins dissents. 9 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Angela Swyers : : v. 2016(Op. at 838 (quoting Kachurak , 913 A.2d at 986 ) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).) Licensee now appeals to this Court. | 1 | 2 |
Com. v. Gaston, T.green1 sentence2026See Commonwealth v. Gaston, 239 A.3d 135 , 137 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2020). -2- J-A30030-25 113(a)(16)); Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32)); Windshield Obstruction (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e)(1)); Safety Glass (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4526(a)); and Careless Driving (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a)). | 1 | 1 |
Petrocsko v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen1 sentence2024Petrocsko v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 745 A.2d 714, 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Renwickgreen1 sentence2023Cf. Renwick, 669 A.2d at 939 (refusal to sign consent form does not constitute refusal to take a chemical blood test). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gorbea-Lespiergreen1 sentence2017See Gorbea– Lespier, supra (indicating consent is a question of fact that must be determined from the totality of the circumstances). | 1 | 1 |
COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Balanowgreen1 sentence1994See also Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Balanow, 126 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 76, 558 A.2d 614 (1989) (where our court held that a refusal to sign a hospital liability consent form by licensee would be considered a refusal under the Implied Consent Law when a licensee's refusal relates to the chemical blood test and not to the existence of the waiver form.) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garlick v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
2 sentences2023(Id. at 22-24, 26-29.) Licensee responds that the trial court correctly sustained Licensee’s appeal because it found that Licensee consented to a chemical test even though she subsequently could not consent due to a lack of consciousness at the hospital. 3 In reviewing a driver’s license suspension, “[o]ur standard of review is limited to determining whether [the trial court] committed an error of law, whether [the trial court] abused its discretion, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Garlick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030 , 2018For the reasons set forth in Garlick, id. at 1036 , we conclude that DOT met its burden of proving that Licensee was specifically warned about the consequences of refusing a chemical blood test, that is, the suspension of his license. 8 See Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30 , 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (noting that in order for DOT to meet its prima facie burden establishing its entitlement to suspend a licensee's operating privilege, DOT must show, inter alia, that the licensee was "specifically warned" about the consequences of refusing a chemical | 2 | 2018–2023 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2019(Id.) Common pleas further concluded that pursuant to the reasoning set forth in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), and Boseman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), Licensee had no constitutional right to counsel before deciding whether to submit to the chemical test of his blood. 2017In addition, Licensee asserts the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), handed down during the pendency of this appeal, applies here and requires that her license suspension appeal be sustained based on the police officer’s failure to obtain a warrant to collect a blood sample. | 2 | 2017–2019 |
In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: PA State Police
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Boseman v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2019(Id.) Common pleas further concluded that pursuant to the reasoning set forth in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), and Boseman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), Licensee had no constitutional right to counsel before deciding whether to submit to the chemical test of his blood. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Martinovic v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2018For the reasons set forth in Garlick, id. at 1036 , we conclude that DOT met its burden of proving that Licensee was specifically warned about the consequences of refusing a chemical blood test, that is, the suspension of his license. 8 See Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30 , 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (noting that in order for DOT to meet its prima facie burden establishing its entitlement to suspend a licensee's operating privilege, DOT must show, inter alia, that the licensee was "specifically warned" about the consequences of refusing a chemical | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Mobley
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 889 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Elko
green
1 sentence1995Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Elko, 155 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 24, 624 A.2d 717 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 535 Pa. 670 , 634 A.2d 1118 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kaczorowski v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.
green
1 sentence1993Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Kaczorowski, 155 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 36, 624 A.2d 723 (1993), also involved the sufficiency of an explanation given to an arrestee who had not been given Miranda warnings, but asked to confer with counsel. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.