Legal Question in DUI Law in Pennsylvania

Re: Dui

If you did not admit to driving and they did not see you driving you may have a good defense. However you need to speak with a lawyer to see if you are eligible for ARD which would rmeove a significant portion of the penalties associated with the offense. I offer free initial consultations.

Re: Dui

Mr. Johns is accurate here. If you would like to speak with I local attorney, you can contact me at the number below or by email. I would love to discuss this matter with you. We may be able to take care of this for you. Let me know.

Re: Dui

Recently (January 2007) the Superior Court rejected a challenge to the provisions of the 2003 DUI law. The challenge was based on an argument that the law was unconstitutional because it punished legal behavior, i.e. driving with a blood alcohol level of less than .08 along with illegal behavior, i.e. driving with a blood alcohol level of more than .08. Since the statute provides that if you drink enough that your BAC measures over the limit within two hours after driving, you can be found guilty even if your BAC was under .08 at the time you were driving. Before the 2003 law it was a pretty well recognized defense and many defendants would bring in experts to testify that a person with a BAC of .11 at the time of testing would have been less than .10 at the time of driving.

The former defense was based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v. Barud, 545 Pa. 297, 681 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1996)in which the Court held:

"Indeed, the most glaring deficiency of � 3731(a)(5) is that the statute completely fails to require any proof that the accused's blood alcohol level actually exceeded the legal limit at the time of driving. Rather, the statute criminalizes a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit up to three hours after the last instance in which the person operated a motor vehicle and without any regard for the level of intoxication at the time of operation. Thus, a person may be prosecuted under � 3731(a)(5) even though his or her blood alcohol level did not actually rise above the legal limit of .10% until after the last instance in which he or she drove.

* * *

Accordingly, because we find that � 3731(a)(5) clearly, palpably and plainly violates both the Constitutions of the United States and of this Commonwealth, the order of the trial court is hereby affirmed."

I don't know if the case was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or not but there was a pretty well written dissent and if it does go up, it may be that you have an interesting defense.

However, for right now, it sounds to me like your strongest defense, if you tested over the .08,is that the police lacked probable cause for the stop. Of course, if you were driving on the sidewalk part of the time on the way home and the police witnessed it, that defense will probably not fly.