Legal Opinion · Dissent

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

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 14, 1995Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The Licensee received the requisite warnings that he was not entitled to an attorney prior to submitting to a blood test to determine his blood-alcohol *204level, and the explanation given by the arresting police officer to him after those warnings were made as to why he was not entitled to an attorney did not negate the Licensee’s understanding of those warnings or create confusion.

This court has determined that when a licensee is not given Miranda warnings but is arrested and asked to submit to a chemical test for blood-alcohol content, in addition to being read the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. SorgCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. ElkoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Leckenby v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API