Posted on 09/01/2006 8:37:33 PM PDT by elkfersupper
It was a case that prompted the president judge of Commonwealth Court to upbraid some judges for ignoring the constitution in the name of stopping drunk driving.
At issue: If a police officer outside his jurisdiction stops a vehicle and the driver refuses to take an alcohol breath t est, can the license of the driver be suspended for a year?
The answer is no, according to a ruling this week by the state Supreme Court.
Police have grounds to make arrests outside of their jurisdiction when they see a "felony, misdemeanor, breach of peace or any other act which presents an immediate clear and present danger to persons or property."
A motorist normally faces an automatic one-year license suspension by the state Department of Transportation if they refuse to take a breath or blood-alcohol test to determine intoxication. But that does not carry over if the stop is done outside the officer's jurisdiction, the high court reaffirmed.
In this case, a Hampden Twp. officer began following Myra J. Martin around Nov. 27, 2003, in the township, but stopped her in Camp Hill. She refused a breath test.
Because of Martin's refusal to take the breath test, PennDOT attempted to suspend her license. Cumberland County Judge Edgar B. Bayley threw out the suspension, but the Commonwealth Court overruled Bayley.
In Tuesday's opinion, Supreme Court Justice Ronald Castille said the Commonwealth Court ruling contradicted almost identical cases and issues decided by the Supreme Court.
"I agree with the Supreme Court that PennDOT was trying desperately to revisit that issue and the Supreme Court said they were not going to do that," said Martin's attorney, John B. Mancke.
The high court ruling also backed what Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner Colins said when he disagreed with his court's majority opinion that backed the suspension.
"We do not want a police state," Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
Because state laws vary by state. That's why. What happens under New Jersey state law is irrelevant in Pennsylvania.
People who drink should not operate a vehicle for no less than 24 hours after their lips last touch a bottle.
It is worth 10,000 - 20,00 or even 30,000 more deaths on the road each year ...
"The whole DUI issue is a gateway to destroy the rights and privacy of citizens."
methinks you would feel differently if a relative was killed by a drunk.
The judge was commenting on the lack of due process for one particular type of offense.
Being a DUI zealot strikes me as entirely sensible. This was a statutory case. Clearly, the statute needs to be amended. Police anywhere, on duty or off, should be able to arrest a DUI perp when they see one, no matter where they may be in a state. The drunk might kill somebody.
You are sadly misinformed.
I would HATE to be inconvenienced even 30 seconds to save a life not my own for the sanctity of not having my rights violated.
That's not what all this is about.
Not until the torches and pitchforks come out.
In this part of the world, they participate in the roadblocks.
Define "drunk".
Zealotry is never sensible. Zealot: a fanatical partisan (according to Webster). We have enough partisanship and fanaticism without injecting it into yet another area of society in the name of 'safety' as defined by zealots.
Clearly, the statute needs to be amended
Strictly in your opinion. I happen to disagree and so did the judge.
Police anywhere, on duty or off, should be able to arrest a DUI perp when they see one, no matter where they may be in a state.
Arrest wasn't the issue. The issue was the breath test courtesy of the presumed-guilty implied consent law.
The drunk might kill somebody.
Perhaps but DUI enforcement has diverged wildly from its proper direction and scope and now encompasses 'checkpoints' that make a mockery of the 4th Amendment and MADD now has a cozy home at each state capitol still spouting false and misleading statistics and demanding more infringment of liberty. In other words, MADD=zealots and we don't need or want zealots making law, no matter what the cause.
Enacting laws and attempting to police what citizens MIGHT do is a fool's errand.
No other States follow New Jersey law because New Jersey judges don't follow Jersey law. See the Toricelli case for example.
Uh, he was actually arrested for actually selling the actual marijuana. You'll get a lot more sympathy for your (arguably just) cause of castigating the police for conducting a sting if you would stop lying about the incidents.
While I have enjoyed travelling at a speed greater than the posted limit on many occasions, and I got away with it (mostly), the New Jersey argument is right. They're doing what we swore them to do.
See post 34. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
You're missing the point. It depends on the laws of the particular state.
If that were true, they wouldn't participate in those "Click it or Ticket" czechpoints.
I am not missing the point. Unless the state passes a law that prohibits police officers from enforcing laws anywhere other than their own town, the officer gets to enforce state laws. I am surprised that no other state has used this argument in its own appellate court.
The seatbelts checks are often funded by federal money, but the states and towns operate the checkpoints and write the tickets and collect the money. It is a stupid encroachment of federal government in state affairs, and an insane ruling by the courts, but that's what we get when the courts fail to disbar people like John Edwards.
Well, you're obviously wrong -- at least in Pennsylvania.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.