Court Opinion

ID: 9763575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:50:04.926953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:46.321704
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The first sentence of section 1547 of the Motor Vehicle Code1, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a), provides that the operation of a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth operates as consent to a chemical test of breath or blood for alcoholic content upon demand. It has been consistently held that there is no constitutional or statutory right for the arrested operator to confer with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to the chemical test. Morris Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 218 Pa.Super. 347, 280 A.2d 658 (1971); Herbert v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa.Commw. 28, 460 A.2d 920 (1983); Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Wroblewski, 65 Pa.Commw. 333, 442 A.2d 407 (1982); Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Herman, 49 Pa. Commw. 201, 410 A.2d 1296 (1980); Sentle v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa.Commw. 479, 410 A.2d 903 (1980); Weitzel Appeal, 41 Pa.Commw. 235, 400 A.2d 646 (1979); Department of Transportation v. Cannon, 4 Pa.Commw. 119, 286 A.2d 24 (1972).
The only qualification is that the officer making such a demand must have reasonable grounds to believe that the operator was driving a motor vehicle under the influence. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a). Thus where the officer had reasonable grounds for such a belief, as was the case here, an insistence to have counsel present in response to such a *60request is properly considered as a refusal of that demand, Wilson v. Commonwealth, 53 Pa.Commw. 342, 417 A.2d 867 (1980); Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Herman, supra; Weitzel Appeal, supra; Department of Transportation v. Cannon, supra, and subjects the operator to a sanction provided for in section 1547(b)(1)(i), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i).2
Under the unique facts of this case I join the Opinion of the Court because here the Commonwealth failed to establish that appellant intended his insistence upon the presence of counsel as his response to the request that he submit to the test.

. Section 1547(a) provides:
(a) General rule. — Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of breath or blood if a police officer shall have reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The test shall be administered by qualified personnel and with equipment approved by the department. Qualified personnel means a physician or a technician acting under the physician’s direction or a police officer who has fulfilled the training requirements in the use of such equipment in a training program approved by the department.
75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a).

. For the sanction of subsection (b)(l)(i) to be applicable, it is required that a demand to submit to a chemical test be made upon an operator who has been placed under arrest. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1).