Court Opinion

ID: 9715104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:54:20.898404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:31.486464
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that a search warrant was required. The Department of Revenue (Department) was conducting an administrative inspection to ascertain whether untaxed diesel fuel was used in vehicles that travel on the roads of the Commonwealth.1
Administrative searches -without a warrant are permitted when there is substantial government interest, the search is necessary to further the regulatory scheme and the inspection program provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987). Waltz was required to comply with the provisions of the Vehicle Code which authorized the Department to inspect motor vehicles for compliance-with its mandates.2 Waltz’ vehicle was observed on public roads by DOR agents who presented receipts from several local suppliers that he purchased untaxed diesel fuel.
Additionally, we note that there was no search of Waltz’ property. Waltz was cited for refusing to allow an inspection of fuel contained in a registered motor vehicle. The Vehicle Code provides sanctions for refusals. Operators are required under the Vehicle Code to submit to a war-rantless search in several instances where probable cause exists: taking a breathalyzer test, providing a blood sampling, as well as permitting inspection of vehicles for suspected untaxed diesel fuel. The General Assembly has authorized sane-' tions on anyone who refuses to comply with those pertinent sections of the Vehicle Code. Section 9019(g)(2) of the Liquid Fuels and Fuels Tax Act, 75 Pa.C.S. § 9019(g)(2), provides that it is a summary violation to refuse to permit an inspection *1065to determine whether untaxed diesel fuel is being used on Pennsylvania roads.
Finally, I believe the record discloses that no constitutional objection was raised or preserved by Waltz at the trial level. The issue is waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334, 516 A.2d 1172 (1986); See Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Company, 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974). Waltz, in fact, presented no evidence.
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court.
President Judge DOYLE joins in this dissent.

. Neil Hochreiter (Hochreiter), an enforcement officer for the Department, described his duty to limit fuel tax evasion and explained that the only diesel fuel approved for use on the roads of the Commonwealth is a clear fuel which is taxed and that dyed fuel is only permitted for home heating, farming vehicles and off-road use. Hochreiter testified that Waltz purchased untaxed fuel from local suppliers, that his truck bore a tax decal which indicated it was required to use taxed fuel and that he observed Waltz’ truck on the road. Hochreiter testified that he charged Waltz with refusal to allow an inspection.

. The majority further fails to recognize that exceptions for warrantless vehicle searches exist when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity and the vehicle could be removed prior to being searched or impounded. Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45, 669 A.2d 896 (1995).