Pa. Cons. Stat. » 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. (VEHICLES) / Chapter 15
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1552 (2026)

 Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1552.  Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition.

The court of common pleas in each judicial district and the Municipal Court of Philadelphia shall establish and implement a program for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for persons charged with a violation of section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, Chapter 38 (relating to driving after imbibing alcohol or utilizing drugs) and rules adopted by the Supreme Court.

(Dec. 15, 1982, P.L.1268, No.289, eff. 30 days; Sept. 30, 2003, P.L.120, No.24, eff. Feb. 1, 2004; Nov. 29, 2004, P.L.1369, No.177, eff. imd.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Stranges, 579 A.2d 930 (Pa. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Stranges, 579 A.2d 930 (Pa. 1990). · cites it 6× “After reviewing the theory of the program and its statutory mandate, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552, the Lutz court examined subsection (d) of § 3731 of Title 75, the Motor Vehicle Code, relating to drunk driving.”
Negovan v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 172 A.3d 733 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “See Section 1552 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552 ("The court of common pleas in each judicial district and the Municipal Court of Philadelphia shall establish and implement a program for [ARD] for persons charged with a violation of [S]ection 3802 [of the Vehicle Code]…”
Correll v. Com. Dept. of Transp., 726 A.2d 427 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “[8] 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552. [9] It may be noted that in Department of Transp.”
Commonwealth v. Sojourner, 518 A.2d 1145 (Pa. 1986). “Section 3731(e)(4) appears to provide for the possibility of admission into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition ("ARD") (75 Pa. C.S. § 1552 (Supp.1986)) program. This Court has held that admission to ARD lies within the discretion of the District Attorney who is free to…”
Com. v. Corson, K., 299 A.3d 172 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552. Our High Court issued Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Frost, 492 A.2d 448 (Pa. 1985). “See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552. Although it was not required before the effective date of the new drunk driving law, there were counties in which ARD was available to those charged with drunk driving under the old law.”
Com. v. Corson, K., 2023 Pa. Super. 122 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552. Our High Court issued Pa.”
Com. v. Cubilete, O. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “1985); 75 Pa.C.S. § 1552. The purpose of ARD is to allow a defendant to complete a rehabilitation program in exchange for the dismissal of pending charges.”
Com. v. Mufson, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). “-3- J-S15007-23 Appellant contends that the trial court should have compelled the DA to nominate him for ARD because, inter alia, the DA’s complete Chichkin-based policy of refusal and the reasons behind it constitute an abuse of discretion and “an unlawful de facto termination…”
Com. v. Worzel, M., 2024 Pa. Super. 302 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1552. With respect to statutory provisions precluding ARD in some circumstances, our High Court described those criteria as involving “procedural matters … concerning certain drunk drivers who may not be admitted to ARD[.”
Commonwealth v. Charles, 38 Pa. D. & C.3d 463 (1983). “The language of the statute which provides for the establishment of the ARD Program in Driving Under the Influence cases is found in 75 Pa.C.S. §1552, which states: “The court of common pleas in each judicial district and the Municipal Court of Philadelphia shall establish and…”
Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 31 Pa. D. & C.3d 401 (1984). “” Thus, the existence of a discretion in the court to refuse or accept a defendant into ARD is self-evident in the wording of the Rules of the Supreme Court providing for ARD and in the wording of the legislature in delegating to the courts in 75 Pa. C.S. §1552 the authority to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.