Legal Opinion

Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 30, 1996PublishedCited by 88 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

CAPPY, Justice.

The issue presented in the instant ease is whether the Commonwealth Court erred as matter of law in concluding that a motorist who had been provided with a legal*541ly sufficient O’Connell1 warning, could still establish that, upon request to submit to chemical testing under the Implied Consent Law, he was so confused about the applicability of his Miranda2 rights that he did not knowingly or consciously refuse to submit to the testing. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law in finding that a motorist, who had…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELLSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. COM. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. IngramSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Commonwealth v. DanforthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Commonwealth v. McFaddenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by88 opinions

  1. Martinovic v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Hudson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. BoucherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Nardone v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  5. Sitoski v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010

83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API