Understanding DUI, Implied Consent, and the Recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision in Bold v. Commonwealth (2024)

In Pennsylvania, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charges are serious offenses governed by statutes and judicial decisions that continually shape their interpretation. One central concept in Pennsylvania DUI law is "implied consent," codified in 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1547(a). This statute provides that "any person who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle" implicitly consents to chemical testing of their breath or blood to determine blood alcohol content (BAC).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently revisited this crucial area of law in Bold v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 365 (2024). This landmark decision specifically examined the meaning of "actual physical control" of a vehicle, clarifying critical nuances previously unresolved.

Historically, Pennsylvania courts broadly interpreted "actual physical control" to include scenarios where individuals might be behind the wheel of a stationary vehicle, even if it were in "Park," assuming the potential for movement. However, the Bold decision significantly refined this interpretation, ruling that when a vehicle is securely parked, especially with the gear engaged in "Park," and the driver is unconscious, asserting actual physical control is impractical and untenable.

In Bold, the Supreme Court emphasized practical considerations and the statutory intent behind implied consent laws—to deter drunk driving and safeguard public safety. The Court highlighted that an unconscious person in a vehicle that is not capable of immediate movement does not present an imminent risk sufficient to invoke the presumption of implied consent under §1547(a).

The Court’s reasoning draws heavily on statutory interpretation principles, specifically scrutinizing the phrase "actual physical control of the movement." It concluded that this language must logically require the realistic ability to exert influence or direct immediate movement of the vehicle. Consequently, a parked vehicle, securely set in "Park," without an awake and capable driver, falls outside this definition.

Practically, this decision impacts law enforcement's procedure regarding DUI cases involving stationary vehicles and unconscious individuals. It mandates that law enforcement must assess the realistic potential for immediate vehicle movement rather than presuming consent merely due to the driver's presence behind the wheel.

This landmark decision in Bold v. Commonwealth is critical for defense attorneys representing clients in DUI cases, as it provides a robust framework for challenging the applicability of implied consent in specific contexts, significantly shaping future litigation and defense strategies.

Defense practitioners and individuals charged with DUI offenses should remain vigilant to these legal developments and their implications. The evolving interpretation ensures the protection of constitutional rights while balancing public safety interests.

For comprehensive legal support and experienced guidance, contact the Law Offices of Moro & Moro, Attorneys at Law for a consultation today 570.784.1010 .

References:

75 Pa.C.S.A. §1547(a) (Pennsylvania Vehicle Code)

Bold v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 365 (2024).

---

For further information or to schedule a consultation, contact Moro & Moro, Attorneys at Law 570-784-1010. Our experienced legal team is here to assist you with all your legal needs in Pennsylvania.

NOTHING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER BLOG POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE OR FORMS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE READER. INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS WEBSITE IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.