Opinion
June 1, 1983.
Motor vehicles — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license — Refusal of breath test — Burden of proof — Reasonable grounds.
1. The burden on the Commonwealth to establish in a license suspension proceeding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was driving while intoxicated W as to justify a request for a breath test is less severe than the burden upon the Commonwealth in a criminal proceeding to establish the offense of driving while intoxicated. [547]
2. A police officer, advised that wrecked auto was proceeding down a street, who discovered a wrecked auto stopped at a traffic light with a person in the vehicle who smelled of alcohol is properly found to have reasonable grounds for believing the person was driving while intoxicated so as to justify a request that the person submit to a breath test. [548]
Submitted on briefs March 2, 1983, to Judges BLATT, CRAIG and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2395 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lawrence E. Saunders, No. SA 900 of 1980.
Motor vehicle operator's license suspended by the Department of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appeal dismissed. PAPADAKOS, A.J. Licensee appealed to to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
John W. Murtagh, Jr., Greenfield Murtagh, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellee.
Lawrence E. Saunders appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which upheld the Bureau of Traffic Safety (Bureau) in suspending his motor vehicle operating privileges for a six-month period because he refused to submit to a breathalyzer examination. Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1547(b).
The facts as found by the trial court are that Saunders was observed in his vehicle, stopped at a red light on Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by Officer Robert J. Reed of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department. Officer Reed testified that Saunders' car was heavily damaged on the front end, that the radiator was steaming, that, when he approached the said vehicle, he detected a heavy aroma of alcohol, and that he believed Saunders to be intoxicated. When Saunders was asked to take a breathalyzer examination, however, he refused. The Bureau of Traffic Safety consequently suspended Saunders' motor vehicle operating privileges for a six-month period, and he appealed. The trial court upheld the suspension, and the instant appeal followed.
Before us Saunders argues only that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that he was driving a vehicle and that his motor vehicle operation privileges, therefore, cannot be suspended under Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code.
Our review in an appeal from the suspension of a motor vehicle driver's license is limited to whether or not the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence, it erred as a matter of law, or if its decision amounts to a manifest abuse of discretion. Duhig v. Commonwealth, 69 Pa. Commw. 478, 451 A.2d 1045 (1982).
Saunders does not challenge the other requisites to a suspension based on a refusal to submit to a chemical test. For a list of these requisites see Wilson v. Commonwealth, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct, 342, 417 A.2d 867 (1980).
The Commonwealth counters that, in a civil appeal from a license suspension for a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, the burden on the Bureau to establish that a licensee was driving while intoxicated is less severe than the burden would be upon the Commonwealth in a criminal proceeding concerning the offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol, and that the Commonwealth has met its burden here.
We have recognized that in a breathalyzer suspension appeal the Bureau must prove, among other things, that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee had been driving while intoxicated. Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Dreisbach, 26 Pa. Commw. 201, 363 A.2d 870 (1976).
See footnote 2, supra.
In the case at hand, Officer Reed testified that he had observed Saunders in his automobile stopped at a red light with his automobile heavily damaged and the radiator steaming. Additionally, Officer Reed testified that he had received a police call that there was a wrecked vehicle proceeding down the street in the easterly direction and that, soon after this call, he observed Saunders in his vehicle (facing east) at the red light referred to above.
Considering the circumstances surrounding the incident and the evidence adduced below, we believe that Officer Reed had reasonable grounds to believe Saunders was driving while intoxicated.
In Duhig, we held that a police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a licensee had been driving while intoxicated when said officer observed the licensee in the driver's seat in one of the vehicles involved in an accident.
Accordingly, we will affirm the trial court's order.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 1983, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.