Court Opinion

ID: 9759100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:04:30.242253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:14:31.298150
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Judge,
Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In this case, Crytzer pleaded guilty to a violation of Section 316.193 of the Florida Statutes which provides, in pertinent part:
316.193. Driving under the influence; penalties
(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages ... when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;
*826(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood;
(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
FLA. STAT. § 316.193.
In addition, Section -316.1934(1) of the Florida Statutes states, in pertinent part:
(1) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in ... [Section] 316.193 for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages ... when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired or to the extent that the person is deprived of full possession of normal faculties, to drive or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle within this state. Such normal faculties include, hut are not limited to, the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies, and, in general, normally perform the many mental and physical acts of daily life.
FLA. STAT. § 316.1934(1) (emphasis added).
Thus, the level of intoxication prohibited by Section 316.193 is not limited to that level which renders a driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. Rather, the level of intoxication prohibited by Section 316.193 includes that level of impairment which affects one’s normal faculties or one’s ability to, inter alia, act in an emergency or normally perform the many mental and physical acts of daily life. Id. Thus, by statute, the level of intoxication prohibited by Section 316.193 encompasses a great deal more than merely the level at which one is incapable of safely driving.
Thus, the provisions of Section 316.913 are not “substantially similar” to the provisions of Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver’s License Compact, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1581. Petrovick v. Department of Transportation, 559 Pa. 614, 741 A.2d 1264 (1999). As a result, Licensee’s Pennsylvania driving privileges may not be suspended pursuant to the provisions of the Compact. Id. Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the trial court sustaining Licensee’s appeal.1

. I would also note that the majority’s analysis of the provisions of Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586, is superfluous. Section 1586 provides, in pertinent part:
[T]he fact that the offense reported to the department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person’s ability to operate, drive or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of section 3731 shall not be a basis determining that the party state’s offense is not substantially similar to section 3731 for purposes of Article IV of the compact.
However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Petrovich, the proper analysis is between the provisions of the foreign statute and the provisions of Article IV of the Compact, and not a direct comparison of the foreign statute and Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code. See Petrovick, 559 Pa. at 619-620, 741 A.2d at 1266-1267. Thus, the comparison envisioned by Section 1586 is completely irrelevant to a determination of whether or not Section 316.193 is "substantially similar” to the provisions of Article IV of the Compact.