S.M. Fite v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 124 C.D. 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Wojcik

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan Marie Fite, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 124 C.D. 2025 : Submitted: April 13, 2026 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Driver Licensing :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: May 27, 2026

Susan Marie Fite (Licensee) appeals the order of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) dismissing her appeal from a 12-month suspension of her operating privilege imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code,1 based on her refusal to submit to a blood test in connection with her

1 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1)(i). This statute, commonly known as the Implied Consent Law, states:

If any person placed under arrest for a violation of [Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3802,] is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the [D]epartment shall suspend the operating privilege of the person . . . for a period of 12 months. arrest for violating Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3802 (relating to driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or a controlled substance). We affirm. The facts of this case, as found by the trial court,2 may be summarized as follows. On May 26, 2024, at approximately 1:32 a.m., Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Jesse Snyder (PSP and Trooper or Trooper Snyder, respectively) was on routine patrol on Peters Mountain Road in Halifax Township. He observed a silver GMC Acadia parked in the parking lot of a closed gas station with its engine running. The Trooper pulled his vehicle into the gas station, parked behind the Acadia, and got out of his patrol car. He then approached the driver’s side of the Acadia and made contact with Licensee, who was the car’s only occupant, sitting in the driver’s seat. Trooper Snyder detected a strong odor of alcohol, and he observed that Licensee had glassy eyes and was slurring her speech. When asked by the Trooper, Licensee stated that she had consumed approximately five beers. Based on his observations, Trooper Snyder asked Licensee to exit her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Licensee submitted to a preliminary breath test, which registered a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.154. However, the Trooper was unable to conduct a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test because

2 In a license suspension appeal, determinations as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight assigned to the evidence are solely within the province of the trial court as fact finder. Reinhart v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 954 A.2d 761, 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). As fact finder, the trial court may accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Id. In addition, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party that prevailed before the trial court. Id. “Thus, we must determine the issue of whether a licensee refused chemical testing ‘under the facts found by the trial court [and] not under the testimony [that one of the parties] prefers.’” Id. at 765-66 (citation omitted). Moreover, on appeal, our review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Marino v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 703 A.2d 1066, 1067 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Our review over questions of law is plenary. Deliman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 718 A.2d 388, 389 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 2 Licensee had difficulty understanding the instructions and became belligerent and agitated. Licensee repeatedly refused to perform the HGN test, or any other field sobriety test, instead insisting that she proceed straight to a chemical test of her blood. Based on her behavior, Trooper Snyder placed Licensee into custody and transported her to the PSP Lykens barracks to conduct the blood draw. After they arrived at the barracks, Trooper Snyder read Licensee the entire DL-26B Form3 while she was still in the back of the patrol car thereby apprising her of the consequences for her refusal to submit to the test. Licensee was initially willing to submit to a chemical test of her blood, but asked the Trooper to permit her to read the DL-26B Form herself after they were in the processing room. Trooper Snyder provided Licensee with a copy of the Form, which she looked at for several minutes. After Licensee finished, the Trooper took seven or eight minutes to re-explain the contents of the Form to her and answer any questions. Ultimately, Licensee changed her mind and refused to submit to a chemical test of her blood. As a result, on June 12, 2024, the Department mailed a letter to Licensee informing her that her operating privileges would be suspended for one year effective July 17, 2024, based on her test refusal. On July 9, 2024, Licensee appealed the suspension to the trial court. On January 7, 2025, the trial court conducted a hearing during which Licensee argued, inter alia, that the provisions of Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code violate her rights under article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. I, § 8. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order dismissing the Licensee’s appeal of her suspension, and Licensee filed the instant appeal of the trial court’s order.

3 The DL-26B Form “contains the chemical test warnings required by Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, which are also known as the implied consent warnings.” Vora v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 79 A.3d 743, 745 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 3 Again, the sole claim that Licensee raises in this appeal is that the requirements of Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code violate her rights under article I, section 8.4 However, after reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the law, we conclude that this issue has been ably resolved in the thorough and well- reasoned opinion of Senior Judge Richard Lewis of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of his opinion in the matter of Fite v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (C.C.P. Dauph., No. 2024-CV-04665- LS 2022, filed March 19, 2025).5

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

4 In relevant part, article I, section 8 states: “The people shall be secure in their persons . . . from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without . . . probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”

5 See also Bechtel v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 352 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2026), petition for allowance of appeal filed, (Pa., No. 114 MAL 2026, filed February 27, 2026); see also Pennsylvania AFL-CIO ex rel. George v. Commonwealth, 757 A.2d 917, 921 (Pa. 2000), wherein our Supreme Court explained:

[R]ather than remanding the matter without further analysis, we proceed to the merits of [the a]ppellants’ [a]rticle III, [s]ection 5 claim for the very reason that it represents a constitutional issue of first impression for this Court, which sits as the ultimate interpreter of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Zemprelli v. Daniels, [436 A.2d 1165, 1169 (Pa.] 1981) (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is ultimate interpreter of Pennsylvania Constitution).FN8

FN8 We also note that all parties have briefed the issue on the merits.

Likewise, in this case, the parties have briefed this constitutional issue at all stages of this matter thereby preserving the claim for our Supreme Court’s review and disposition. 4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan Marie Fite, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 124 C.D. 2025 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Driver Licensing :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2026, the order of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas dated January 7, 2025, is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________ MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge 050a 051a 052a 053a 054a 055a 056a 057a 058a 059a