Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wall v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1994Rather, the appellant first submitted to a pre-arrest breath test as expressly authorized in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(k)- As the Commonwealth Court stated in Wall v. Commonwealth, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , [401], 539 A.2d 7, 9 (1988), ‘[W]e conclude that a preliminary breath test in the field, performed on an instrument which detects the presence of alcohol, is not one of the chemical tests of breath, blood or urine deemed to be consented to by section 1547(a).’ The pre-arrest breath test is simply another form of field sobriety test used by police officers when deciding whether a driving while intoxica 1994Rather, the appellant first submitted to a pre-arrest breath test as expressly authorized in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(k)- As the Commonwealth Court stated in Wall v. Commonwealth, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , [401], 539 A.2d 7, 9 (1988), ‘[W]e conclude that a preliminary breath test in the field, performed on an instrument which detects the presence of alcohol, is not one of the chemical tests of breath, blood or urine deemed to be consented to by section 1547(a).’ The pre-arrest breath test is simply another form of field sobriety test used by police officers when deciding whether a driving while intoxica | 2 | 2 |
Ryan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen2 sentences2016In Ryan v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 823 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), a case similar to the instant one, this Court addressed whether a licensee’s incorrect belief that a pre-arrest breath test is a sufficient defense for failing to satisfy her obligation to submit to a chemical test under the Implied Consent Law. 2016We concluded that the licensee’s confusion was not a defense for failing to submit to a blood test, explaining that compliance with a pre-arrest breath test does not preclude administration of the post-arrest chemical test to determine BAC, and that any confusion as to licensee’s responsibility to submit to the blood 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 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Park v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen1 sentence2025On November 30, 2023, the trial court 2 “The sole purpose of a pre-arrest breath test, authorized by [Section 1547(k) of the Vehicle Code,] 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(k)[,] for an individual suspected of DUI, is to assist the investigating officer in determining whether the driver should be placed under arrest.” Park v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 178 A.3d 274, 286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
COM., DEPT. OF TRANS. v. Scottgreen1 sentence2016Moreover, as our Supreme Court held, once an officer provides a licensee with the Implied Consent Warnings, the officer “has done all that is legally required to ensure that the [licensee] has been fully advised of the consequences of refusing to submit to chemical testing.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott, 684 A.2d 539, 546 (Pa. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Appeal of Attleberger
green
2 sentences2018In Ryan, we noted that in Appeal of Attleberger, 136 Pa. Cmwlth. 329, 583 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), a licensee argued that his performance of the pre-arrest breath test should relieve him from having to submit to a post-arrest blood test under the Implied Consent Law. 1994In Appeal of Attleberger, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 329, 583 A.2d 24 (1990), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 531 Pa. 450 , 613 A.2d 1203 (1992), we held that O’Connell does not apply where a motorist is confused over the significance of a pre-arrest breath test. | 2 | 1994–2018 |
Menosky v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Livingston v. Shoreline Insurance Agency
green
2 sentences1994In Appeal of Attleberger, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 329, 583 A.2d 24 (1990), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 531 Pa. 450 , 613 A.2d 1203 (1992), we held that O’Connell does not apply where a motorist is confused over the significance of a pre-arrest breath test. 1994In Appeal of Attleberger, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 329, 583 A.2d 24 (1990), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 531 Pa. 450 , 613 A.2d 1203 (1992), we held that O'Connell does not apply where a motorist is confused over the significance of a pre-arrest breath test. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In re the Appeal of Attleberger
green
2 sentences1994In Appeal of Attleberger, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 329, 583 A.2d 24 (1990), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 531 Pa. 450 , 613 A.2d 1203 (1992), we held that O’Connell does not apply where a motorist is confused over the significance of a pre-arrest breath test. 1994In Appeal of Attleberger, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 329, 583 A.2d 24 (1990), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 531 Pa. 450 , 613 A.2d 1203 (1992), we held that O'Connell does not apply where a motorist is confused over the significance of a pre-arrest breath test. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McFarren
green
2 sentences1989On appeal, the appellant, citing Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McFarren, 514 Pa. 411 , 525 A.2d 1185 (1987), alleges that the lower court erred by not suppressing the results of his blood test which was performed after he had already submitted to a pre-arrest breath test. 1989On appeal, the appellant, citing Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McFarren, 514 Pa. 411 , 525 A.2d 1185 (1987), alleges that the lower court erred by not suppressing the results of his blood test which was performed after he had already submitted to a pre-arrest breath test. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.