Motor vehicles — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license — Refusal of breath test — Scope of appellate review — Findings of fact — Sufficient evidence — Error of law — Abuse of discretion — Right to counsel.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of a decision of a lower court in a motor vehicle operator's license suspension case is to determine whether findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, an error of law was committed or a manifest abuse of discretion occurred. [199]
2. A motor vehicle operator has no right to consult with counsel before submitting to a properly requested breath test, and her refusal to submit to breath test is not excused because the licensee confused her Miranda rights with her rights regarding the administration of the test. [200]
OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE CRUMLISH, JR., January 15, 1986:
The Department of Transportation suspended Stephanie Joy Bartelt's driving license for six months for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code. A Luzerne County Common Pleas Court order sustained Bartelt's appeal and rescinded the suspension. The Department appeals this order. We reverse and reinstate the suspension.
75 Pa. C. S. § 1547(b)(1). Bartelt's arrest occurred prior to a 1982 amendment to this section which increased the suspension period to twelve months.
Bartelt was arrested for driving while intoxicated. She was given Miranda warnings, including her right to counsel, and informed that her license would be suspended if she refused to take a breathalyzer test. Bartelt replied that she would not take the test until she consulted with her attorney. She was then advised that her right to counsel had no bearing on the administration of the breathalyzer test, but she continued to refuse the test without her attorney present.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Our scope of review of a common pleas court's decision in a license suspension matter is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, whether there has been an error of law, or whether the trial court's decision evidences a manifest abuse of discretion. Leibler v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 83 Pa. Commw. 270, 476 A.2d 1389 (1984).
The Department contends that the trial court erred by holding that Bartelt did not refuse the breathalyzer test because she was confused about her right to counsel. We agree.
This Court has repeatedly held that confusion between Miranda rights and rights regarding the administration of a breathalyzer test does not excuse a refusal to submit to a test. See, e.g., King v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 81 Pa. Commw. 177, 472 A.2d 1196 (1984). Any confusion on Bartelt's behalf was not created by the law enforcement authorities; she was specifically told that her right to counsel did not extend to the breathalyzer test.
Reversed.
ORDER
The order of the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court, No. 4843-C of 1981 dated June 17, 1982, is reversed. The six-month suspension of driving privileges imposed by the Department of Transportation is reinstated.