Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Bartelt

503 A.2d 103, 94 Pa. Commw. 198, 1986 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2068
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 15, 1986
DocketAppeal, No. 1505 C.D. 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 A.2d 103 (Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Bartelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Bartelt, 503 A.2d 103, 94 Pa. Commw. 198, 1986 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2068 (Pa. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

The Department of Transportation suspended Stephanie Joy Bartelt’s driving license for six months for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. Section 1547(b) (1) of the Vehicle Code.1 2A Luzerne County Common Pleas Court order sustained Bartelt’s appeal and rescinded .the suspension. The Department appeals this order. Wé reverse and reinstate the suspension.

Bartelt was arrested for driving while: intoxicated. She was given Miranda2 warnings, including her right to counsel, and informed that her license would be suspended if she refused to take a breathalyzer test. Bartelt replied that she would not take the test until she consulted with her attorney. She was then advised that her right to counsel had no bearing on the administration of the breathalyzer test, but she continued to refuse the test without her attorney present.

Our scope of review of a common pleas court’s decision in a license suspension matter is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, whether there has been an error of law, or whether the trial court’s decision evidences a manifest abuse of discretion. Leibler v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 270, 476 A.2d 1389 (1984).

The Department contends that the trial court erred by holding that Bartelt did not refuse the breathalyzer test because she was confused about her right to counsel. We agree.

[200]*200This Court has repeatedly held that confusion between Miranda rights and rights regarding the administration of a breathalyzer test does not excuse a refusal do submit to a test; • See, e.g., King v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 177, 472 A.2d 1196 (1984). Any confusion on'Bartelt’s behalf was not created by 'the law enforcement authorities; she was specifically ■told-that her right'to counsel did not extend to the breathalyzer test. ' ■

Reversed.

. Order

The order of the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court, No. 4843-0 of 1981 dated June 17, 1982, is reversed. The six-month suspension of driving privileges imposed by the Department of Transportation is reinstated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL
555 A.2d 873 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 A.2d 103, 94 Pa. Commw. 198, 1986 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-department-of-transportation-v-bartelt-pacommwct-1986.