Testi Psihologicheskie Pri Postuplenii V Mvd Cpd 566 Voprosov

Annotate this Case. 1 (1987) 526 A.2d 109. The isolated reference to 'unique' suitability was intended to be synonomous with the test of 'particular suitability' endorsed by the Appellate Division. We reject petitioner's contention that Kohl v. Fair Lawn, supra, 50 N.J. At 279-80, requires proof of 'unique' rather. -po-matematike-5-klass-vilenkin-566.html 2018-09-03T13:22:09+00:00 weekly.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Julie Negovan, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing BEFORE::::::::: No. 2017 Submitted: August 18, 2017 HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: October 24, 2017 Julie Negovan (Licensee) appeals from the Bucks County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) January 19, 2017 order dismissing her appeal and reinstating the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing’s (Department) operating privilege suspension.

The sole issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal in light of the police officer’s redaction of the enhanced criminal penalties portion of the implied consent warnings. After review, we affirm. On June 29, 2016, at approximately 11:10 p.m., Upper Southampton Township Police Officer Francis Fazzio (Officer Fazzio) was operating an unmarked patrol vehicle when he observed Licensee, who was driving a black Chevy Camaro, stopped at a red light in the left lane of Street Road at the intersection of Second Street Pike in Upper Southampton Township, Bucks County. Officer Fazzio followed Licensee, estimated that her car reached speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour (MPH) in a posted 45 MPH zone, and witnessed her vehicle swerve into the center turn lane three times while she travelled westbound at that location.

After effectuating a traffic stop, Officer Fazzio noticed that Licensee had glassy, bloodshot eyes, and that there was a strong smell of alcohol coming from Licensee’s vehicle. Licensee informed Officer Fazzio that she was coming from the Philadelphia Union League, and she had consumed a couple glasses of wine. Officer Fazzio then asked Licensee to perform three field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn (or nine-step heel to toe) test, and the one-leg stand test. Licensee did not touch her heel to her toe and exhibited difficulty maintaining her balance during the tests.

As a result, Officer Fazzio placed Licensee under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).1 Officer Fazzio transported Licensee to St. Mary Medical Center, placed her in a room designated for blood draws, and read her the implied consent warnings (Form DL-26).2 Officer Fazzio also handed Licensee the Form DL-26 to read. Those portions of the implied consent warnings which related to the enhanced criminal penalties for not submitting to a blood test were redacted from the Form DL-26 as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S.___, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016), which was decided six days before Licensee’s arrest.3 Licensee refused to submit to the blood test and declined to sign the form. On July 14, 2016, the Department notified Licensee that her driver’s license would be suspended for 12 months, effective August 18, 2016, pursuant to Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547, due to her refusal to submit to chemical testing.

On August 12, 2016, Licensee appealed from the suspension to the See Section 3802(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code, which provides: “An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.” 75 Pa.C.S. 2 “The DL-26 Form contains the chemical test warnings required by Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, [75 Pa.C.S. § 1547,] which are also known as the implied consent warnings.” Vora v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 79 A.3d 743, 745 n.2 (Pa. 3 This case and the Court’s ruling will be discussed more fully below. 1 2 trial court.

A hearing was held and, on January 19, 2017, the trial court denied Licensee’s appeal and upheld her suspension. Licensee appealed to this Court.4 On February 8, 2017, the trial court ordered Licensee to file a Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) (Rule 1925(b) Statement).