Court Opinion

ID: 9755726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:48:45.473339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:10.462974
License: Public Domain

SILVESTRI, Senior Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority in affirming the trial court’s finding that Officer Stewart had reasonable grounds to stop and arrest Jennings, but dissent from the reversal of the trial court on the basis that Jennings exhibited overt confusion regarding his constitutional right to an attorney.
After placing Jennings under arrest, Officer Stewart took him to the DUI center. As to what transpired at the DUI center, Stewart testified as follows:
Q What happened once you arrived at the DUI Center?
A We got to the DUI Center, and Officer Magurn from the County Deputy Sheriffs Department was present at the time.
At the Center I advised him of his Rights of Refusal. We showed him the form and asked him to sign it, and I believe he refused to sign'. I did sign the form stating that I advised him of these Rights of Refusal.
Q You said you advised Mr. Jennings of his implied consent. What exactly did you advise him?
A That under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code if I had probable cause to believe he was driving under the influence of alcohol, I can request him to take a test; and if he refused to take the test, that his license would be suspended for one year just for the refusal.
Q And what was his response and/or conduct to that question?
A The whole time he didn’t understand why he was stopped. There is no reason for me to stop him. We explained to him several times the implied consent laws and asked him to take the test and everything. Eventually, I just left him in the custody of the Deputy Sheriff. I *231asked the Deputy Sheriff if he wanted anything else from me after I read him the Rights and all, and then went back into service after that.
Q In whose custody did you relinquish him?
A Deputy Magurn.
(R.R. 28a-29a.)
Although counsel for Jennings cross-examined Officer Stewart as to the circumstances of the arrest, there was no cross-examination relative to what transpired at the DUI center, particularly as to Officer Stewart’s request that Jennings undergo chemical breath testing.
Officer Magurn testified as follows:
Q And did you receive custody of Mr. Jennings from Officer Stewart?
A Yes.
Q Would you kindly explain to the Court exactly what happened from the first moment you gained custody of Mr. Jennings exactly what took place?
A At approximately 2:45 Officer Stewart of the Jenkintown Police Department arrived at the Center with Mr. Jennings (indicating), and I believe we set him down and the first thing we normally do is take a couple of preliminary questions. Then Officer Stewart read the implied consent to Mr. Jennings.
Mr. Jennings stated he did not understand what was going on. He continued not understanding the arrest, what was going on at the Fast Track Center, and we tried to explain the best we could what exactly was going on.
Q Let me go back a little bit. Did you ever tell Mr. Jennings why he was there in response to his question, that he never knew what was going on?
A That he was under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.
*232Q Did you explain to him that you were asking him to submit to a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content?
A Yes, I did. Once we got him in the other room, I reread the implied consent to Mr. Jennings and I asked him if he understood, and he said he did not understand.
Then I have another form right in front of the Intoximeter 3000, and I proceeded to read that. It’s a little more indepth.
Q Officer, I’m showing you what has been marked for identification purposes as Exhibit C-l. Do you recognize this document (indicating)?
A Yes, I do.
Q And did you read this to Mr. Jennings?
A I read Number 4, yes, I did. After Mr. Jennings asked for an attorney, I brought out the form we have from the State of Pennsylvania and I read it to him.
Q And would you please read Paragraph 4 into the record?
A It says here, “Mr. Jennings, I am advising you of the following: You do not have the right to consult with an attorney or anyone else prior to taking the chemical test. If you fail to provide the requested sample by not following instructions or by continuing to request to speak with someone, it will be considered a refusal.”
Q And what happened after you read this to Mr. Jennings?
A With that I signed the part right here saying, “I certify I have read the above warnings to the motorist, and gave the motorist an opportunity to submit to chemical testing.” I signed it. t
I then have to ask Mr. Jennings if he would sign fye middle, which he refused to sign, and then because of that I signed the bottom one where it says, “Motorist refused *233to sign after being advised.” And I signed my name again (indicating).
Q And did you request him again after you signed this form for him to submit to another chemical test?
A Numerous times prior and after we dealt with this form, I asked him to take the test and he continued to refuse to take it. And I also continued to read, “Implied Consent,” to him since he didn’t understand it; and at one time after I read it the third or fourth time, he said that he never saw that, he never heard that before.
(R.R. 33a-37a.)
On cross-examination by counsel for Jennings, Officer Ma-gum testified as follows:
Q You do have a specific recollection that Mr. Jennings did ask about his rights?
A Yes, he did ask about his rights.
Q Did you ever try to explain to Mr. Jennings the difference between having rights in a criminal case as opposed to not having rights in a civil case such as this?
A No, I did not.
Q Did Mr. Jennings tell you that this was a new experience for him and that he had his license since 1962, and he did not have a clue as to what was going on?
A Yes, I do recall that.
Q And don’t you recall telling Mr. Jennings that he seemed to be a fairly intelligent person, in your opinion?
A I did state that.
(R.R. 45a-46a.)
Jennings testified as follows:
Q At some point in time he arrested you and put you in handcuffs, and he took you to the Fast Track Center that evening, correct?
A Yes.
(R.R. 51a.)
*234THE COURT: Did deputy Magurn tell you you didn’t have a right to an attorney when you blew into the machine or when you were asked to take this test; that you didn’t have a right to an attorney being present at that time?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, but it didn’t make any sense to me. I didn’t believe him.
Q Two things. Was it ever adequately explained to you by Sergeant Magurn why he told you you didn’t have the right to an attorney? Did he tell you why you didn’t have the right to an attorney?
A No.
Q Did you ever outright refuse to take the test?
A No.
Q What was your problem?
A My problem is the whole thing seemed totally unbelievable to me.... I just found it totally befuddling that as an American citizen I can be brought in in handcuffs and told I couldn’t have a lawyer, I couldn’t talk to anyone.
(R.R. 51a, 54a-55a.)
The problem which Jennings expressed in response to the Court’s question was a problem he did not state to either Officer Stewart or Officer Magurn.
In Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242, 555 A.2d 873 (1989), the Supreme Court reiterated that questions of credibility and of the weight to be afforded evidence are for the trial court as fact finder to determine, not for the Appellate Courts, so long as sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the trial court’s finding. Clearly, the record establishes that Jennings’ concern was not his rights, but that he should not have been arrested, a claim he made to the trial court which it rejected.