second type test in Pennsylvania

2021Id. at 237 . 10 Here, Officer Chichilla had “reasonable grounds for requesting a second type of test.” Jackson, 536 A.2d at 882 .

1993Jackson , 113 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 257, 536 A.2d at 882 .

1993While I would not go so far as to adopt, or even to agree with, the Appellant’s “simple logic” argument, Judge MacPhail’s statement of the law in Jackson and his explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Transportation v. McFarren, 514 Pa. 411 , 525 A.2d 1185 (1987), and this Court’s decision in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Penich, 112 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303, 535 A.2d 296 (1988), provides sound guidance where a police officer suspects that both alcohol and drugs have caused the impairment of the driver: If ... a second type of test is requeste

1993While I would not go so far as to adopt, or even to agree with, the Appellant’s “simple logic” argument, Judge MacPhail’s statement of the law in Jackson and his explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Transportation v. McFarren, 514 Pa. 411 , 525 A.2d 1185 (1987), and this Court’s decision in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Penich, 112 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303, 535 A.2d 296 (1988), provides sound guidance where a police officer suspects that both alcohol and drugs have caused the impairment of the driver: If ... a second type of test is requeste

1993While I would not go so far as to adopt, or even to agree with, the Appellant’s “simple logic” argument, Judge MacPhail’s statement of the law in Jackson and his explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Transportation v. McFarren, 514 Pa. 411 , 525 A.2d 1185 (1987), and this Court’s decision in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Penich, 112 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303, 535 A.2d 296 (1988), provides sound guidance where a police officer suspects that both alcohol and drugs have caused the impairment of the driver: If ... a second type of test is requeste

1988Where the only purpose for the second test is to substantiate the accuracy of the initial test, reasonableness is not established. 3 See Depart ment of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Penich, 112 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 303 , 535 A.2d 296 (1988).

2021Id. at 237 . 10 Here, Officer Chichilla had “reasonable grounds for requesting a second type of test.” Jackson, 536 A.2d at 882 .

2010In Ryan , we stated that “any confusion as to the responsibility to submit to the second type of test arose not from statements made by the police officer but solely from Licensee’s ‘self-induced and self-destructive confusion about what the law is or should be.’ ” Id. at 1105 (quoting Attleberger, 583 A.2d at 27 ).

2010In Ryan , we stated that “any confusion as to the responsibility to submit to the second type of test arose not from statements made by the police officer but solely from Licensee’s ‘self-induced and self-destructive confusion about what the law is or should be.’ ” Id. at 1105 (quoting Attleberger, 583 A.2d at 27 ).

2003Kromelbein v. Commonwealth, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 532 , 637 A.2d 728 (1994) (where police officer testified that breath test was intended for added probable cause, it was held to be a preliminary breath test and not the second type of test).

2003Kromelbein v. Commonwealth, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 532 , 637 A.2d 728 (1994) (where police officer testified that breath test was intended for added probable cause, it was held to be a preliminary breath test and not the second type of test).

2003Karabinos v. Commonwealth, 739 A.2d 601 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999).

2002The White court, citing Commonwealth v. Timko, 491 Pa. 32 , 417 A.2d 620 (1980), explained that a warrantless search may be permissible as a search incident to an arrest.

2002The White court, citing Commonwealth v. Timko, 491 Pa. 32 , 417 A.2d 620 (1980), explained that a warrantless search may be permissible as a search incident to an arrest.

2002White, 669 A.2d at 902 , citing Timko, 417 A.2d at 622-23 .

2002White, 669 A.2d at 902 , citing Timko, 417 A.2d at 622-23 .

2000In Blum , the Superior Court suggested that a second type of analysis should also be considered, i.e., “whether the methodology underlying the proffered expert testimony is generally accepted by the scientific community.” Blum, 705 A.2d at 1323 .