Law Firm Blog

The 2008 case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James Michael Black continues to create headlines, as a Northampton County jury recently determined that the Riverview Country Club, which served Black his drinks the night of a 2008 fatal DUI accident, had no legal responsibility under Pennsylvania's "Dram Shop" laws for the fatal crash which has sent Black to a Pennsylvania state prison for 5-10 years under a number of criminal charges.

The weather has finally brightened, and summer has begun across Pennsylvania.  Whether you plan on traveling to the Poconos, the shore, or other summer destinations, drivers in PA should be aware of increased DUI enforcement campaigns that are in effect throughout the summer season.

As alcohol is becoming the drug of choice among youth in Pennsylvania, criminal charges for underage drinking are becoming an ever-growing concern.  It seems common, or even socially acceptable, for young adults to have parties when parents are away or to engage in underage drinking at college.  While such activities may seem fun and harmless at the time, many teens and young adults not only experience the physical consequences of drinking too much at an early age, including vehicle accidents, suicide, and impaired intellectual development, but often suffer long-lasting legal penalties which may inhibit a young individual's ability to get a job or be accepted into school.  If arrested or cited for underage drinking in Pennsylvania, many young individuals and their parents not only want to know the potential penalties that are faced, but want to know what options are available to avoid such long-lasting consequences.

If you're convicted of shoplifting, also called "retail theft" in Pennsylvania, you will face significant consequences, including not only court-imposed criminal penalties, but also the longer-lasting issue of being labeled a thief for years to come following your conviction.  Pennsylvania law defines retail theft  at 18 Pa. C.S. § 3929 as taking possession of merchandise offered for sale by a merchant with the intention of depriving the seller of its possession, use, and/or benefit of the merchandise without paying the full retail value for the item.  Shoplifting is typically not considered a higher-level criminal offense, but it can carry other serious consequences that many people fail to consider until it's too late.  A conviction for shoplifting can have a lifelong impact by establishing a criminal record with a conviction for a crime of fraud.

A tragic news story out of Southeast Pennsylvania has prompted many to call into question whether the criminal penalties under Pennsylvania's current DUI law are harsh enough for repeat DUI offenders.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its recommendations this week to combat the problem of drunk driving.  Included in its report was the board's recommendation that all states, including PA, lower the DUI threshold from 0.08% blood alcohol content (BAC) to 0.05%. 

There are specific tell-tale signs that police look for when pulling a vehicle over for DUI in Montgomery County, PA.  These signs are based on the driver's operation of the vehicle and are not necessarily vehicle code violations in and of themselves.  However, based on the circumstances and an officer's experience, these factors may be enough to establish a reasonable suspicion that the driver is under the influence and allow an officer to make a lawful vehicle stop.

Before an individual can be arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania, the law requires that the initial vehicle stop must be lawful.  The police must then establish probable cause that a person was driving under the influence before an arrest can be made.  Once an arrest is made, the Commonwealth then bears the burden of proving the elements of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction in Pennsylvania.

On April 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Missouri v. Tyler G. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013).  The Court upheld constitutional protections against warrantless blood tests for uncooperative drivers suspected of driving under the influence.  The Court was firm in its opinion, delivered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stating that obtaining blood samples without first obtaining a warrant, attempting to obtain a warrant, or without a case-by-case factual analysis "is an invasion of bodily integrity [that] implicates an individual's most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy."

DUI checkpoints are the most controversial anti-DUI tool in use by Pennsylvania law enforcement today.    In Pennsylvania, a “DUI checkpoint” is “a well-marked, stationary roadblock conducted by the police for several hours at a time.  The officers on the scene make brief, suspicionless stops to check for driver intoxication, using a predetermined objective standard in determining which cars to stop.  Such roadblocks are advertised in advance and are situated at roadway locations where drunk driving is known to have occurred in the past.”  Com. v. Beaman, 583 Pa. 636, 880 A.2d 578, 579-580 (2005).  Those in favor of DUI checkpoints regard them as highly visible deterrents to drunk driving, supported by a campaign of public awareness.  Checkpoint opponents, meanwhile, argue that suspicionless stops unsupported by a belief that a driver is violating the law are in violation of constitutional protections.