Pennsylvania law arrest with no evidence

The back wheels of the SUV were in a ditch. There were no other people in proximity to the SUV. The defendant was restrained by the police and arrested and charged with DUI and operating a vehicle without a valid inspection. Following a bench trial, the court found that the defendant was highly intoxicated at the time of his arrest and convicted him of both charges.

The defendant appealed.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer - Never Give Consent to Search -Pennsylvania and New Jersey

The issue on appeal was whether the mere fact that the defendant was intoxicated and in close proximity of the SUV was sufficient to show that he operated the SUV while intoxicated. The court noted that the evidence produced at trial does not have to preclude every possibility of innocence. Further, the court stated that the fact finder is free to believe, all, some, or none of the evidence presented.


  • What Are My Miranda Rights in Pennsylvania?.
  • Most Recent Blog Posts;
  • Who Will Find Out About Your Pennsylvania DUI Arrest? - Young Marr Law Firm.
  • background check on jeff schlansky.
  • What is Resisting Arrest?.
  • Practice Areas.

Recent changes in the law require a police officer that is investigating a person for suspicion of DUI to obtain a warrant to compel the person to undergo a blood test. The police do not need a warrant, however, if a person voluntarily consents to submit to a blood test. If you are charged with DUI highest rate of alcohol or another DUI crime it is vital to engage a seasoned Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to fight to preclude any evidence the Commonwealth should not be permitted to use against you. Allegedly, a police officer stopped the defendant due to a broken headlight.

Search and seizure law in Pennsylvania

The officer that stopped the defendant observed an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant and noticed that his speech was slurred. As such, the officer asked the defendant to exit his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant failed the tests and was placed under arrest. The officer then asked the defendant if he was willing to provide a blood sample for blood alcohol testing.

There is no Suspect or there is Insufficient Evidence for Arrest

He filed a motion to suppress the result of his blood test on the grounds that his consent was invalid. The court denied his motion, and the defendant was convicted on both counts. He subsequently appealed. If you are charged with a Pennsylvania DUI, the Commonwealth is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the alleged crime.

In DUI cases where the police did not perform chemical testing, the Commonwealth will typically rely on circumstantial evidence to support its case. In a recent case decided by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the court discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a conviction of driving under the influence-general impairment. If you are charged with DUI general impairment or any other DUI offense it is crucial to retain a skilled Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assist you in formulating a strong defense.


  1. In most states, the misdemeanor must occur in the officer's presence..
  2. When Can Police Make a DUI Arrest in Pennsylvania?.
  3. st francis de sales parish marriage maine.
  4. I’m Here to Learn About the Criminal Process!
  5. It is reported that a police officer conducted a traffic stop on the defendant, after observing the defendant drift between the fog line and solid yellow line of a road before turning into an exit of a fast food restaurant that was marked do not enter. The officer then performed field sobriety testing on the defendant, during which the defendant allegedly exhibited signs of intoxication. Based on the foregoing, the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI general impairment.

    The case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the defendant was convicted. The evidence set forth at trial does not have the preclude the possibility of innocence to be sufficient and the trier of fact is free to believe some, all, or none of the evidence presented. In reviewing whether the evidence is sufficient on appeal, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party and cannot re-evaluate the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder.

    Factual and Procedural Background It is reported that the defendant was charged in January with DUI, driving with a suspended license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Right to a Prompt Trial Rule of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a trial must commence within days of when a criminal complaint is filed.

    Factual Background of the Case Reportedly, the arresting officer observed the defendant sitting in an idle vehicle with the motor running, but no lights on in the early hours of the morning. Factual Background Allegedly, around am on July 29, , the police were dispatched to an area in which they observed a car stranded in floodwaters and the defendant standing nearby. Factual and Procedural Background of the Case Reportedly, the defendant was charged with numerous crimes, including three counts of driving under the influence — general impairment.

    Fifth Amendment Right Against Double Jeopardy On appeal, the defendant argued that his three DUI convictions were almost identical, in that each charge alleged that he drove a vehicle after consuming a sufficient amount of alcohol to render him incapable of driving, operating, or controlling the vehicle safely. Factual Background of the Case Reportedly, the defendant was driving on a Pennsylvania road at pm on a Friday evening. Factual Background It is alleged that the police observed an SUV parked perpendicular to the roadway at pm.

    What Constitutes Physical Control of a Vehicle The issue on appeal was whether the mere fact that the defendant was intoxicated and in close proximity of the SUV was sufficient to show that he operated the SUV while intoxicated. Factual Background Allegedly, a police officer stopped the defendant due to a broken headlight. Factual Background of the Case It is reported that a police officer conducted a traffic stop on the defendant, after observing the defendant drift between the fog line and solid yellow line of a road before turning into an exit of a fast food restaurant that was marked do not enter.

    Interpreting “in the Presence”

    While the threshold for a conviction is. An attorney adds value to your case by advocating for your rights, ensuring the police followed proper procedures throughout the process and helping preserve your freedom by advocating for the best possible outcome in your situation. Disclaimer: The answer is intended to be for informational purposes only. It should not be relied on as legal advice, nor construed as a form of attorney-client relationship. Even first-time … Sponsored answer by Thomas J.

    Maronick, Jr.

    Is Getting Arrested a Probation Violation?

    Many individuals who have been convicted of a felony crime in Oregon no longer have the right to possess a firearm. Often, the conviction was … Sponsored answer by Jesse Lohrke. If you send a lawyer or law firm email through this service, your email will not create an attorney-client relationship and will not necessarily be treated as privileged or confidential. You should not send sensitive or confidential information via this email service. The lawyer or law firm to whom you are writing may not choose to accept you as a client.

    Moreover, as the Internet is not necessarily a secure environment it is possible that your email sent via the Internet might be intercepted and read by third parties. Probable cause is a logical inference , supported by facts and circumstances, that a crime has been, or is being, committed.

    Probable cause arises from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by police officers and other government agents. Field sobriety tests and preliminary breath tests PBT may also be utilized to establish probable cause and allow an officer to request more reliable testing such as a blood alcohol test or an official breath test.


    • find person by phone number 925-766-7333.
    • jackson county ohio death records.
    • concepts of california criminal law payton.
    • Interactive map: Citation in Lieu of Arrest.

    A person may be arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania once a police officer establishes probable cause that the driver is under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. As previously discussed, this probable cause is established through the initial traffic stop, any field sobriety tests, and any observations made by the officer. An experienced Montgomery County, PA DUI lawyer can challenge whether 1 a valid stop was initially made or 2 whether the police established probable cause to make an arrest.

    If, for example, the prosecution cannot show that probable cause existed before the arrest was made, then any evidence collected against the individual after the arrest may be suppressed and not admitted into evidence at trial, including any breath test or blood test results obtained after the arrest. If this evidence is suppressed, the prosecution may have a difficult time proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Please submit the form and an attorney will contact you shortly. Please indicate how you would like to be contacted in the form. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation.