Commonwealth v. Sutherland

By Judge Joseph E. Spruill, Jr.

This case presents yet another unique issue arising under the implied consent law.

Although we have had difficulty in bringing dps case on, I find no significant disparity in the facts set forth in [the] memoranda. I will therefore assume, for purposes of this ruling, that counsel stipulate that the defendant was stopped and arrested for driving under the influence in Lancaster County on August 21, 1993. Upon being advised of the implied consent law, the defendant elected to take the blood test. The Commonwealth’s sample was forwarded to the Consolidated…