Court Opinion

ID: 9705022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:54:54.921627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.468685
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
Because I agree that a police officer is not statutorily required to request that an arrestee submit to chemical test*594ing, I join the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to note my disagreement with the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that a police officer must be present when the request is made. The statutory language of § 1547 does not support this additional requirement. The only duty specifically imposed upon the officer by the statute is to advise the arrestee that refusal to submit to chemical testing will result in a suspension of operating privileges. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2). Once the warnings are given, the officer’s presence, or lack thereof, is of no relevance to the requesting or taking of the test.
Moreover, as the Department illustrates in its brief, requiring officers to remain until the request to submit to chemical testing is made has an adverse effect on the growing use of county-wide or regional DUI processing centers throughout the Commonwealth. DUI processing centers provide a centralized chemical testing location where police officers who have made DUI arrests may take the person for chemical testing. After the officer has transported the arrestee and has given the appropriate warnings, the officer then relays the necessary information to the individuals in charge of the center and he is free to return to patrol duties. Requiring the officer’s presence for the request to submit to testing thwarts the very purpose of those centers as the officers are forced to stay and wait instead of immediately returning to their patrols.
In summary, I see no reason for the duty imposed by the Commonwealth Court that the police officer be present when the Legislature has not so directed.
NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY and CAPPY, JJ., join this concurring opinion.