Case Results

Homicide by Vehicle While DUI – PA Supreme Court affirms Superior Court order ruling that police needed warrant for blood that was drawn.
On July 5, 2014, our client was charged with Homicide by Vehicle While DUI and Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI as well as numerous other offenses for an accident involving a train. Our client lost his fiancé in the crash and his daughter was severely injured. Following the accident numerous police officers and medical personnel arrived on scene. Due to our client’s injuries he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. While at the hospital his blood was drawn by medical staff. Through the police officers investigation they obtained information that an odor of marijuana was observed coming from our client and a police officer went to the hospital to obtain a blood draw. After arriving at the hospital the officer was told that blood was already drawn so he requested that blood be sent for further testing. He did not obtain a warrant to do so. Due to the officer’s failure to obtain a warrant for the blood, we filed a motion to suppress this evidence at trial. The trial court initially denied this request, but after our client was convicted at trial and this case went on to appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the trial court wrote an opinion that it should have suppressed this evidence. When this case went before the Superior Court, they confirmed that the blood results should have been suppressed as the officer did not obtain a warrant and exigent circumstances did not exist in order to excuse the warrant. The Commonwealth appealed this ruling and the case was accepted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 20, 2022, the PA Supreme Court reaffirmed the Superior Court’s ruling and ordered that the convictions for our client were to be vacated, the blood results are to be suppressed and the case was to be remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Client was charged with Driving Under Suspension – DUI related for what the officer claimed was his third violation pursuant to Section 1543(b)(1)(iii). This section of the motor vehicle code concerns an individual who has had two prior violations under the same subsection. At the preliminary hearing we were able to argue that our client’s prior driving under suspension offenses were under a separate subsection of the motor vehicle code and his charges were dismissed. He was facing a sentence of up to a $2,500 fine and imprisonment for not less than six months.

In 1999, when our client was 18 years old, he entered a guilty plea to several sex offenses for events that occurred between 1996 and 1998. He would have been between the ages of 14 and 17 during those times. Originally he was charged as a juvenile, but later certified as an adult. At the time of his plea, he was directed by the Court to undergo imprisonment and was subject to sex offender registration for the rest of his life. In 2021, our client failed to register with the Pennsylvania State Police as part of his sex offender requirements and was subsequently charged with a felony offense. Due to the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. Haines, 222 A.3d 756 (Pa.Super. 2019) and Commonwealth v. Zeno, 232 A.3d 869 (Pa.Super. 2020), we were able to successfully argue that the sex offender requirements imposed at the time of our client’s sentencing in 1999 were unconstitutional and the Commonwealth agreed to withdraw this new charge. Subsequently, we were able to file a motion to have him removed from sex offender registration pursuant to the same constitutional arguments. The Commonwealth agreed with our argument and the Court granted our request to have him removed as a registered sex offender. Notably, our client is currently 41 years old and to this day was never charged with another sex related offense.

In 2002, when our client was 17 years old he was charged as a juvenile with several sex offenses. His case was subsequently transferred from juvenile court to adult court. At the age of 18 he accepted a nolo contendere plea, which meant that he was conceding if the Commonwealth went to trial they would have enough for a conviction. Due to his charges, at the age of 18 he was ordered to registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in In re J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014), that the lifetime registration requirements on juveniles for specified offenses violated their due process rights by utilizing an irrebuttable presumption. In 2019, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held in Commonwealth v. Haines, 222 A.3d 756 (Pa.Super. 2019), that the “J.B. Court’s holding should apply with equal weight to juvenile adjudications as well as to defendant’s convicted as adults for crimes committed as juveniles.” Based on these appellate decisions, we were able to file a motion on our client’s behalf to have him removed from sex offender registration. The Commonwealth conceded this issue and the trial court entered an order in June 2022, directing that our client was no longer required to register as a sex offender. After 20 years of complying with sex offender registration and never committing another sex offense, our client no longer sees his name on the sex offender list.

For truck drivers, the most important thing they maintain is their ability to drive a commercial vehicle. This is how they earn a living and provide for their families. One of the most devastating charges a truck driver can face is a DUI. A typical plea offer for a first offense DUI will include acceptance into the ARD program. This program, in most counties, provides an individual with an opportunity to have their charges expunged, and significantly reduces their loss of license. If you have a CDL, not only will you face a license suspension of your regular driver’s license, but depending on the offense number you will face an additional year or even a lifetime disqualification. This client came to us with a first offense DUI. As most individuals charged with a DUI, he faced two separate counts for the same incident. The first was in regards to his blood alcohol content and the second charge was concerning the officer’s opinion as to his inability to safely drive his vehicle. We knew from the beginning he could not do ARD as he would have lost his CDL for a year and everything else he worked so hard for. At the time of this offense our client had his CDL for over 10 years. It was our initial hope that the District Attorney’s Office was going to work with us, but when we were not able to reach an agreement that would have saved our clients CDL, we proceeded to trial. At trial, the Commonwealth called a forensic toxicologist to testify to our clients blood alcohol content. This toxicologist was not involved in the testing of our client’s blood and did not sign off on the final report. Based on this, we objected to their testimony and argued that this was a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitution. The trial judge agreed and the charge concerning our clients blood alcohol content was dismissed. The arresting officer was still permitted to testify to his opinion of impairment, but after he testified we were able to successfully argue that the Commonwealth could not prove that he was impaired and the impairment based DUI charged was also dismissed.