Court Upholds PennDOT’s Implied Consent Law | News, Sports, Jobs

A recent ruling from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld PennDOT’s implied consent law, which requires a motorist suspected of driving under the influence to submit to chemical testing.

The case involved a Clearfield County woman, Melissa Jo Norris, 44, who was arrested on May 5, 2023, after a state trooper conducted a wellness check in the general store parking lot Dollar in Irvona.

According to the Commonwealth Court opinion issued late last month, Officer Austin Woolcock found Norris asleep in her vehicle. The engine was running and the key to his vehicle was resting in his lap.

When Norris awoke, he appeared dizzy with “bloodshot, glassy eyes.”

His speech was difficult to understand, according to the appeals court summary of the case.

“Police believed at the time (Norris) was under the influence of a controlled substance,” Commonwealth Court reported.

Norris was taken to the hospital for a blood test, at which point the officer told her that refusing to agree to chemical tests would result in her driver’s license being suspended “for at least 12 months.”

She consented to the procedure, but the hospital phlebotomist, after five or six attempts, was unable to draw blood.

Norris then withdrew his consent.

She was then taken to the State Police barracks and a warrant was obtained for a blood draw.

The police then took her back to the hospital. Again, Norris agreed to the blood draw, but after another unsuccessful attempt to obtain blood, she withdrew her consent.

Although court records indicate she was convicted of the misdemeanor DUI, she appealed PennDOT’s decision to suspend her license for at least a year due to her refusal to consent to a blood test.

Clearfield County Judge Fredric J. Ammerman heard his appeal and dismissed it on Dec. 1, 2023, according to the Commonwealth Court case record.

Norris, represented by Ebensburg attorney Robert J. Freeman, argued that Ammerman erred “in determining that her conduct constituted a refusal to consent to chemical testing under the implied consent statute “.

In an opinion written by Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon and joined by Judges Renee Cohn Jubelirer and Matthew S. Wolf, the Commonwealth Court upheld Ammerman’s decision.

“Pennsylvania courts have long and consistently held that anything short of unqualified and unequivocal consent to submit to chemical testing constitutes a refusal of consent,” the appeals court said.

The Commonwealth Court opinion concluded that the implied consent law allows for multiple testing attempts and that withdrawal of consent after an unsuccessful attempt “may constitute a refusal.”

The appeals panel noted that Woolcock said Norris initially consented to the blood draw and cooperated throughout the process.

But, as the panel explained, PennDOT’s burden is to establish that the driver of the vehicle was asked to submit to a chemical test and was warned that refusal to do so would result in a suspension of his license.

The burden facing the defense was to demonstrate that the driver was not capable of making a conscious decision to refuse the test or was physically incapable of taking the test.

The defense, according to the Commonwealth Court, failed to meet its burden.

For example, it did not call an expert medical witness “to testify to (Norris’) physical inability to take the test or that she was not capable of making a conscious refusal,” the court said. ‘call.

The opinion issued by the committee said it appreciated the defense argument that a licensee should not be forced to submit to repeated and unsuccessful attempts to draw blood, but the consent law implied does not provide for such an exception, he concluded.