Drunken Bike Ride Can Lead To Jail

Dean E. Reynosa, Esq. (high resolution photo)

In Pennsylvania, the Legislature has enacted a tier classification for driving under the influence offenses.  Essentially, the greater one’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the greater the penalty one could expect to receive.  The penalty also increases in relation to the number of prior offenses one has accumulated.  While there are exceptions such as the Accelerated Rehabilitative Program (ARD) or Intermediate Punishment, an individual charged with DUI faces the possibility of a prison sentence and the loss of one’s driver’s license.  Since a DUI conviction can have an immediate effect on your life and on your career, it is important to contact an attorney to guide you through the various options that are available to successfully defend your case.

There are a host of factors that play into the decision as to which course of action may be best for your particular case.  ARD is a diversionary program that may be available to most first-time offenders; however, there are exceptions to this general rule.  ARD generally offers the opportunity to avoid both a jail sentence and a criminal conviction.  ARD also offers the opportunity to shorten any license suspension that may be imposed by the Department of Transportation.  There are, however, nuances with the ARD Program which again is reason to contact an attorney to discuss your case.

There are situations where the ARD Program may not be the appropriate option for case.  Your attorney will have to assess all of the particular facts of your case in order to determine whether your case is appropriate for the ARD Program.  There are other options.  For example, it may be appropriate to evaluate the traffic stop.  The manner of the traffic stop may affect the admissibility of evidence obtained from that traffic stop.  In layman’s terms, if your rights were violated during the traffic stop, the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop may not be used in court against you.  Not all issues can be discussed in this brief article, this article simply attempts to highlight the fact that there is no ordinary DUI case and it is best to contact an attorney to discuss your particular case and your options.

In Pennsylvania, courts have found individuals guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (or a controlled substance) even though they were not operating a motor vehicle.  For instance, people have been found guilty for riding bicycles under the influence.  Commonwealth v. Brown, 620 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. 1993).  However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted that a DUI offense was properly dismissed against an individual allegedly riding a horse while intoxicated.  Commonwealth v. Noel, 857 A.2d 1283 (Pa. 2004).  The high court reasoned that the charge was properly dismissed since the statute purporting to require obedience to all vehicle code laws by horse riders was unconstitutionally vague.  However, individuals have been convicted for DUI while sitting in their vehicle intoxicated with the engine off.  Commonwealth v. Trial, 652 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. 1994).

One of the methods used by law enforcement to determine whether someone is under the influence of alcohol is by measuring one’s BAC through the use of a breath test.  The ubiquitous Intoxilyzer 5000 is one such device used by police departments throughout Pennsylvania.  While there have been many legal arguments raised against this breath testing device, a novel challenge in the Commonwealth of Kentucky has recently emerged.  Commonwealth of Kentucky v. House, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 162212 (Ky. App., January 18, 2008).  An individual was charged with driving under the influence as a result of a breath sample analyzed by an Intoxilyzer 5000 that registered his BAC as 0.18%; in Pennsylvania, this result would have been more than twice the legal limit of 0.08%.  In preparation for his defense, the motorist requested the ‘computer source code’ for the device.  The prosecutors denied his request and the trial court refused to enforce a subpoena issued by the motorist’s attorney to the device’s manufacturer.  On appeal, the motorist argued that the information is relevant to his defense since he had retained a computer expert that “could examine the code for any ‘bugs’ or flaws in the code’s logic which….may produce an incorrect blood alcohol readings.”  House at *1.  Without the information, his expert was in no position to examine the operation of the device.  The appellate court agreed and directed that the manufacturer produce the code for examination by the motorist’s expert.  This is a case worth following since it has the potential to effect many DUI prosecutions across the nation. 

This article is not intended as legal advice, but rather as an informative tool to stress the importance of discussing one’s case with an attorney. 

Mr. Reynosa has a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration from the University of Southern California and a Juris Doctor degree from the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University, Reynosa was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1997.  He has more than five years of service in York and Cumberland Counties' criminal justice systems.  He joined Saidis, Flower & Lindsay in 2007 where he concentrates his practice in civil litigation and white collar crime.

For more information regarding this news release, please contact Virginia Wentzel at 717-243-6222 or attorney@sfl-law.com.