OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) that sustained the appeal of Derek Daniel Schindler (Schindler) from a one-year suspension of his operating privileges for refusal to submit to chemical testing. Concluding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe that Schindler had been operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol, we affirm.
On August 28, 2007, Schindler was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance in violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731. On September 20, 2007, the Department notified Schindler that his operating privileges would be suspended for one year as a result of his refusal to submit to chemical testing on August 28, 2007, which violated Section 1547(b)(1)® of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)®.1 Schindler appealed to the trial court, and on April 17, 2008, the trial court held a de novo hearing.
The Department presented the testimony of Patrolman David Sciullo, a seven-year veteran of the Ross Township Police Department. Officer Sciullo testified that on August 28, 2007, at 3:15 a.m., he was dispatched to a single vehicle rollover accident. Officer Sciullo arrived at the accident scene at 3:21 a.m., and found a red Chevrolet Cavalier on its roof in the middle of the roadway. Schindler, who was 22 years old at the time, was outside of the vehicle sitting on the side of the roadway.
[603]*603According to Officer Seiullo, Schindler stated that he had been driving home from a friend’s house and the next thing he remembered was the car had flipped over. Schindler believed he had fallen asleep at the wheel. Reproduced- Record at 18a (R.R. _). Officer Seiullo testified that Schindler did not want to be taken to the hospital for treatment. Officer Seiullo stated that Schindler’s speech was slurred, his gait was unsteady and he had trouble maintaining his balance. Officer Seiullo did not recall seeing any injuries on Schindler.
Officer Seiullo requested that Schindler perform three field sobriety tests: the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and the finger-to-nose test. Schindler failed each test. Concluding that Schindler was under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, Officer Seiullo handcuffed Schindler, placed him into the patrol car and advised him he was under arrest for DUI. Officer Seiullo further advised Schindler of the standard chemical test warnings, including that his operating privilege could be suspended for one year if he refused to consent.
Schindler initially agreed to the chemical test and was transported to UPMC Passa-vant Hospital. However, Schindler changed his mind. When they arrived at the hospital, Officer Seiullo read the warnings from Form DL-26 verbatim to Schindler. Schindler refused either to be tested or to sign the form. Schindler was then transported to the police station and detained overnight.
On cross-examination, Officer Seiullo was shown five photos of Schindler taken after the accident that showed cuts and bruises on his head, knees and feet. Officer Seiullo stated that he did not recall seeing these injuries after the accident but acknowledged that it was still dark when he arrived on the scene. Upon further questioning, Officer Seiullo admitted that he administered a Breathalyzer test to Schindler at the scene, and the test ruled out the presence of alcohol in Schindler’s system. Officer Seiullo also acknowledged that he searched Schindler’s vehicle for pills, vials and illicit drugs but found nothing. He also acknowledged the absence of track marks on Schindler’s arms. Finally, Officer Seiullo acknowledged that Schindler’s car had rolled over and that broken glass was strewn around the interior of the car. Although Officer Seiullo did not recall observing injuries to Schindler’s feet, he did recall that Schindler was wearing sandals.
Officer Seiullo further acknowledged on cross-examination that when Schindler was released from jail the next morning, his mother transported him to UPMC St. Margaret, where Schindler was examined and underwent, inter alia, a urinanalysis. Officer Seiullo conceded that the emergency room report showed that testing had ruled out any alcohol or illegal controlled substances in Schindler’s blood, and that he had sustained a closed head trauma and other injuries in the motor vehicle accident.
Schindler offered the testimony of his mother, who picked him up from the police station, took the photographs of his injuries and then transported him to UPMC St. Margaret. Mrs. Schindler testified that when she picked up her son, he was still woozy; his face was swollen; he had blood on his shirt; his knees and feet were cut and bloody; and he had extracted some glass from his cuts. R.R. 32a. According to Mrs. Schindler, her son had suffered a concussion and she was instructed to observe her son for symptoms of a head injury and monitor his sleep. The emergency room report was offered [604]*604into evidence.2
The trial court sustained Schindler’s appeal, concluding that Officer Sciullo did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Schindler was operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The trial court also held that Schindler proved he was incapable of making a knowing and conscious decision to refuse chemical testing of his blood. The Department now appeals.3
On appeal, the Department contends that the trial court erred in holding that Officer Sciullo did not have reasonable grounds to believe Schindler had committed a DUI offense. It contends that it is irrelevant that chemical testing later ruled out the possibility that Schindler was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.4 Schindler had a duty to consent to the testing upon request of Officer Sciullo. The Department argues that Officer Sciullo had grounds to request the test given Schindler’s slurred speech, unsteady gait and failure to pass the walk- and-turn, one-leg stand and flnger-to-nose sobriety tests.
To establish that a suspension of operating privileges was proper, the Department must prove at a statutory appeal hearing that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving while under the influence by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test, (3) refused to do so, and (4) was warned that a refusal would result in a license suspension. Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 445, 737 A.2d 1203, 1206 (1999). “Reasonable grounds exist when a person in the position of the police officer, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared at the time, could have concluded that the motorist was operating the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” Id. at 446, 737 A.2d at 1207. Whether reasonable grounds exist is a question of law reviewable by this Court on a case by case basis. Id.
The Department argues its evidence established that Schindler’s speech was slurred, his gait was unsteady, he had trouble maintaining his balance, and he [605]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) that sustained the appeal of Derek Daniel Schindler (Schindler) from a one-year suspension of his operating privileges for refusal to submit to chemical testing. Concluding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe that Schindler had been operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol, we affirm.
On August 28, 2007, Schindler was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance in violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731. On September 20, 2007, the Department notified Schindler that his operating privileges would be suspended for one year as a result of his refusal to submit to chemical testing on August 28, 2007, which violated Section 1547(b)(1)® of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)®.1 Schindler appealed to the trial court, and on April 17, 2008, the trial court held a de novo hearing.
The Department presented the testimony of Patrolman David Sciullo, a seven-year veteran of the Ross Township Police Department. Officer Sciullo testified that on August 28, 2007, at 3:15 a.m., he was dispatched to a single vehicle rollover accident. Officer Sciullo arrived at the accident scene at 3:21 a.m., and found a red Chevrolet Cavalier on its roof in the middle of the roadway. Schindler, who was 22 years old at the time, was outside of the vehicle sitting on the side of the roadway.
[603]*603According to Officer Seiullo, Schindler stated that he had been driving home from a friend’s house and the next thing he remembered was the car had flipped over. Schindler believed he had fallen asleep at the wheel. Reproduced- Record at 18a (R.R. _). Officer Seiullo testified that Schindler did not want to be taken to the hospital for treatment. Officer Seiullo stated that Schindler’s speech was slurred, his gait was unsteady and he had trouble maintaining his balance. Officer Seiullo did not recall seeing any injuries on Schindler.
Officer Seiullo requested that Schindler perform three field sobriety tests: the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and the finger-to-nose test. Schindler failed each test. Concluding that Schindler was under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, Officer Seiullo handcuffed Schindler, placed him into the patrol car and advised him he was under arrest for DUI. Officer Seiullo further advised Schindler of the standard chemical test warnings, including that his operating privilege could be suspended for one year if he refused to consent.
Schindler initially agreed to the chemical test and was transported to UPMC Passa-vant Hospital. However, Schindler changed his mind. When they arrived at the hospital, Officer Seiullo read the warnings from Form DL-26 verbatim to Schindler. Schindler refused either to be tested or to sign the form. Schindler was then transported to the police station and detained overnight.
On cross-examination, Officer Seiullo was shown five photos of Schindler taken after the accident that showed cuts and bruises on his head, knees and feet. Officer Seiullo stated that he did not recall seeing these injuries after the accident but acknowledged that it was still dark when he arrived on the scene. Upon further questioning, Officer Seiullo admitted that he administered a Breathalyzer test to Schindler at the scene, and the test ruled out the presence of alcohol in Schindler’s system. Officer Seiullo also acknowledged that he searched Schindler’s vehicle for pills, vials and illicit drugs but found nothing. He also acknowledged the absence of track marks on Schindler’s arms. Finally, Officer Seiullo acknowledged that Schindler’s car had rolled over and that broken glass was strewn around the interior of the car. Although Officer Seiullo did not recall observing injuries to Schindler’s feet, he did recall that Schindler was wearing sandals.
Officer Seiullo further acknowledged on cross-examination that when Schindler was released from jail the next morning, his mother transported him to UPMC St. Margaret, where Schindler was examined and underwent, inter alia, a urinanalysis. Officer Seiullo conceded that the emergency room report showed that testing had ruled out any alcohol or illegal controlled substances in Schindler’s blood, and that he had sustained a closed head trauma and other injuries in the motor vehicle accident.
Schindler offered the testimony of his mother, who picked him up from the police station, took the photographs of his injuries and then transported him to UPMC St. Margaret. Mrs. Schindler testified that when she picked up her son, he was still woozy; his face was swollen; he had blood on his shirt; his knees and feet were cut and bloody; and he had extracted some glass from his cuts. R.R. 32a. According to Mrs. Schindler, her son had suffered a concussion and she was instructed to observe her son for symptoms of a head injury and monitor his sleep. The emergency room report was offered [604]*604into evidence.2
The trial court sustained Schindler’s appeal, concluding that Officer Sciullo did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Schindler was operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The trial court also held that Schindler proved he was incapable of making a knowing and conscious decision to refuse chemical testing of his blood. The Department now appeals.3
On appeal, the Department contends that the trial court erred in holding that Officer Sciullo did not have reasonable grounds to believe Schindler had committed a DUI offense. It contends that it is irrelevant that chemical testing later ruled out the possibility that Schindler was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.4 Schindler had a duty to consent to the testing upon request of Officer Sciullo. The Department argues that Officer Sciullo had grounds to request the test given Schindler’s slurred speech, unsteady gait and failure to pass the walk- and-turn, one-leg stand and flnger-to-nose sobriety tests.
To establish that a suspension of operating privileges was proper, the Department must prove at a statutory appeal hearing that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving while under the influence by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test, (3) refused to do so, and (4) was warned that a refusal would result in a license suspension. Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 445, 737 A.2d 1203, 1206 (1999). “Reasonable grounds exist when a person in the position of the police officer, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared at the time, could have concluded that the motorist was operating the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” Id. at 446, 737 A.2d at 1207. Whether reasonable grounds exist is a question of law reviewable by this Court on a case by case basis. Id.
The Department argues its evidence established that Schindler’s speech was slurred, his gait was unsteady, he had trouble maintaining his balance, and he [605]*605failed the field sobriety tests. These facts, it contends, were sufficient to authorize Schindler’s arrest for DUI. These facts have been found to constitute reasonable grounds for a DUI arrest, particularly when combined with bloodshot eyes and the smell of alcohol on the driver of the vehicle. See, e.g., Stein v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 857 A.2d 719, 726 n. 12 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (citing licensee’s “unsteadiness as he walked to the rear of his BMW; the strong odor of alcoholic beverage; Licensee’s bloodshot and glassy eyes; his slurred speech and his failure of three sobriety tests.”). Here, there was neither the smell of alcohol on Schindler nor the presence of glassy or bloodshot eyes. What is more important, however, is the other evidence in the record that is simply ignored by the Department, including the remainder of Officer Sciullo’s testimony. The evidence as a whole, even when taken together with the testimony highlighted by the Department, defeats the Department’s argument that Officer Sciullo had reasonable grounds to believe Schindler was intoxicated.
Officer Sciullo testified selectively about the events of August 28, 2007. Only when questioned on cross-examination did he acknowledge that Schindler agreed to a preliminary breath test (PBT) at the accident scene, which produced a negative result for alcohol. The very purpose of the PBT is to aid an officer in determining whether an individual should be placed under arrest. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(k).5 Additionally, the officer’s thorough search of Schindler’s vehicle uncovered no evidence of alcohol or controlled substances, nor was any such evidence found on Schindler’s person. This lack of physical evidence plus the negative PBT means that the only indicator of intoxication was Schindler’s unsteady gait and difficulty maintaining balance. The reasonable explanation for Schindler’s balance problem was the accident itself. Schindler had literally just crawled out of his overturned vehicle following a violent rollover accident that caused cuts to his head, legs and feet, not to mention psychological trauma.6 Given these circumstances, Schindler’s difficulty performing the one-leg stand and walk- and-turn tests is hardly surprising and was insufficient to constitute reasonable grounds to arrest Schindler for DUI.
Implicit to the Supreme Court’s directive that the arresting officer look at the “facts and circumstances as they appeared at the time” is that all facts and circumstances be considered, not just those that suggest DUI. Banner, 558 Pa. at 446, 737 A.2d at 1207. Stated otherwise, an officer is not free to pick and choose among the facts and rely exclusively on those that suggest DUI. Banner and its progeny do not stand for the principle [606]*606that the officer need only consider evidence that supports probable intoxication, such as unsteadiness, while overlooking evidence that may explain the unsteadiness and disregarding exculpatory evidence, such as a negative Breathalyzer test. On the narrow facts presented in this case, this Court holds that it was not reasonable for Officer Sciullo to believe that Schindler had operated his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. We therefore affirm the order of the trial court on that basis.7
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2009, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter, dated April 17, 2008, is AFFIRMED.