Kelly v. Commonwealth
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Crumlish, Jr.:
I respectfully dissent.
The majority would hold that the warning given Kelly complies with the mandate of the Vehicle Code that “[i]t shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that the persons operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing.” 75 Pa. C. S. §1547(b)(2).
*5In Peppelman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 262, 403 A.2d 1041 (1979), we held that the warning or notice requirement is to be strictly construed.. Moreover, in Everhart v.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Everhart v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Peppelman v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. LandauCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985