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

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

Respectfully, I dissent. Darlene Your-ick believed, mistakenly, that her driving privileges would not be affected if she declined chemical testing. Because Your-ick’s mistaken belief was created by Penn-DOT’s poorly worded DL-26 warning, I would sustain her suspension appeal.

The DL-26 warning is mandated by Section 1547(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, which states:(2) It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that:(i) the person’s operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing; and(ii) if the person refuses…