Motor vehicles — Suspension motor vehicle operator's license — Refusal of breath test — Formal charges.
1. A refusal of a properly requested breath test is not excused by a failure of the Commonwealth to institute formal charges of driving under the influence of alcohol before making the request for the test, as all that is required by the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1547 is that the licensee merely be placed under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. [57]
OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE CRUMLISH, JR., June 10, 1983:
Leo John Walsh appeals a Luzerne County Common Pleas Court order dismissing his appeal of a driver's license suspension. We affirm.
Walsh was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following his refusal to take the breathalyzer test, Walsh's driving license was suspended for six months. Walsh was never charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. At the trial court, Walsh argued that the suspension was invalid because he had not been charged with driving under the influence. His appeal was dismissed, the court holding that a formal charge was unnecessary.
Walsh now reiterates that argument and we too reject it. Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code, provides in part:
(1) If any person
placed under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol is requested to submit to a chemical test and refuses to do so, the test shall not be given but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall:
(i) suspend the operating privilege of the person for a period of six months. . . . (Emphasis added.)
75 Pa. C. S. 1547(b).
The statutory language is clear. The legislature indisputably prescribed that a mere arrest warrants submission to the test. See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Burke, 31 Pa. Commw. 290, 375 A.2d 1375 (1977).
We have reviewed the cases cited by Walsh in support of his argument, Grabish v. Commonwealth, 50 Pa. Commw. 246, 413 A.2d 431 (1980), and White v. Commonwealth, 59 Pa. Commw. 156, 428 A.2d 1044 (1981), and have found them inapposite because neither involved the question of whether Section 1547(b) requires a formal driving under the influence charge.
Affirmed.
ORDER
The Luzerne County Common Pleas Court order in No. 1096-C of 1982, dated May 3, 1982, is hereby affirmed.