Gaskin v. Commonwealth

1

Sharae Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, Appellant

No. 1178 C.D. 2018

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: November 23, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, PRESIDENT JUDGE SENIOR JUDGE.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that sustained the statutory appeal of Sharae Gaskin (Licensee)^[1] from a one-year suspension of her operating privilege pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i),^[2] imposed by the Department because Licensee refused to submit to a chemical test in connection with her arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). On appeal, the Department argues that the trial court erred by determining that the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Licensee was in actual physical control of the movement of her vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and, thus, had no basis for requesting that Licensee submit to a chemical test. For the following reasons, we reverse.

By notice mailed on April 4, 2018, the Department informed Licensee that it was suspending her operating privilege for one year pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code for refusing a chemical test on March 9, 2018. (Official Notice of Suspension, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 6a-9a.) Licensee appealed the suspension, and the trial court held a de novo hearing.

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of the arresting officer, Simone Molotsky of the Philadelphia Police Department (Officer Molotsky). On March 9, 2018, while on patrol between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., Officer Molotsky was "flagged down by a pedestrian stating that there was a female slumped over the wheel in her vehicle." (Hearing Transcript (Hr'g Tr.) at 3-5, R.R. at 12a-14a.) Officer Molotsky located the vehicle and observed Licensee slumped over and unconscious in the driver's seat. She noted that the vehicle's keys were in the ignition, the engine was running, and the headlights were on. After knocking on the window several times, Licensee awoke. Officer Molotsky observed that Licensee had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and that Licensee smelled strongly of alcohol. Officer Molotsky then looked to the right of Licensee and saw an open bottle of vodka in the passenger seat. Upon exiting the vehicle at Officer Molotsky's request, Licensee fell backwards and caught herself on the vehicle's frame. Officer Molotsky asked if Licensee would perform field sobriety tests, and Licensee agreed. Prior to conducting the tests, Officer Molotsky inquired if Licensee had any medical conditions, and Licensee allegedly responded that she had taken Xanax that evening.^[3] Officer Molotsky then attempted to explain the tests. Officer Molotsky testified that Licensee was unable to follow the instructions for the first test, which involved following the tip of a pen with her eyes; Licensee initially declined to perform the second test (the "walk and turn") but then attempted it unsuccessfully; and Licensee became "irate" while attempting to stand on one leg for the third test "and refused to follow [Officer Molotsky's] orders." (Hr'g Tr. at 7-10, R.R. at 16a-19a.) Ultimately, Licensee failed to successfully complete any of the tests. As a result, Officer Molotsky placed Licensee under arrest for suspicion of DUI, drove Licensee to the "central processing division" at the police station, and presented Licensee to an Accident Investigation Division officer for a chemical test. (Hr'g Tr. at 10-11, R.R. at 19a-20a.)

The Department next presented the testimony of Officer Ronald Jackson of the Philadelphia Police Department (Officer Jackson), who is assigned to the Accident Investigation Division and is responsible for performing chemical testing on DUI suspects. Officer Jackson testified that he read the DL-26 warnings to Licensee and advised her that the chemical test being requested was a blood draw. According to Officer Jackson, Licensee "really didn't respond" to the warnings and "just cried." (Hr'g Tr. at 17, R.R. at 26a.) Officer Jackson asked Licensee to take the test, and she continued to cry for about 5 to 10 minutes. Because Licensee never responded yes or no, Officer Jackson agreed that he "deemed it a refusal" based on the warnings. (Hr'g Tr. at 18, R.R. at 27a.)

Licensee testified on her own behalf. She explained that after work, she brought a bottle of vodka to her friend's house, where they had some drinks. After an hour, she left to go straight home. She stated that there were no available parking spaces on her block, so she parked on the corner down the street from her home. Licensee then explained that she "had to go to the bathroom really bad," so she left "everything," including her pocketbook, on the passenger seat and ran to her house to use the bathroom. (Hr'g Tr. at 22, R.R. at 31a.) Licensee testified that, approximately 30 minutes later, she remembered that she needed to return to her car to get her purse. She first stopped at the store across from her parked car to get a cigar. She explained that she smoked the cigar outside, but because it was cold out, she "got back in the car and started the car to put the heat on to warm up before [she] walked back down the street with all of [her] bags and stuff." (Hr'g Tr. at 22, R.R. at 31a.) Licensee sat in her car listening to music, which is something she does often, and fell asleep without realizing having done so. Sometime thereafter Licensee was startled awake by Officer Molotsky knocking on the vehicle's window.^[4]

Licensee recounted that Officer Molotsky asked if Licensee was okay and if Licensee had taken any drugs, to which Licensee responded that she was not on drugs but had been drinking that night. Licensee explained that she had parked her vehicle earlier and had just returned to it to retrieve her items; Licensee maintained that she was not operating the vehicle. Licensee stated that "[i]t seemed as though [Officer Molotsky] didn't believe [Licensee]." (Hr'g Tr. at 22-23, R.R. at 31a-32a.) Licensee recalled providing her driver's license to Officer Molotsky, which, Licensee claimed, established that she lived nearby. Licensee asked Officer Molotsky if Licensee could "just go home[,]" but Officer Molotsky said no, requested that Licensee get out of the car, and began instructing Licensee on the field sobriety tests. (Hr'g Tr. at 24, R.R. at 33a.)

Licensee explained that, when she arrived at the central processing division for the blood test, Officer Jackson began talking to her, and she kept trying to ask him questions that nobody else would answer. She testified that Officer Jackson told her to wait until he was done explaining everything. She then asked him why she had to be arrested and "started getting hysterical[.]" (Hr'g Tr. at 26, R.R. at 35a.) Officer Jackson asked Licensee if she was refusing the test, and Licensee responded that she was not. Licensee testified that she just wanted to understand what was going on and "couldn't control [herself] with the tears." (Hr'g Tr. at 27, R.R. at 36a.) She explained that Officer Jackson "sat there and looked at [Licensee] for a while" and then told her to "[j]ust go to the nurse." (Id.) When she went to the nurse, Licensee stated she thought it was for the blood test, but instead, the nurse just took her vitals, and she was then returned to her cell. (Id.)^[5]

By Order dated July 19, 2018 (entered on July 20, 2018), the trial court sustained Licensee's appeal and rescinded her suspension. (R.R. at 60a.) The Department appealed to this Court, and the trial court issued an opinion in support of its Order, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), on October 2, 2018. (Original Record, Item No. 8.) Therein, the trial court made factual findings reflecting the above testimony. (Trial Court Opinion (Trial Ct. Op.) at 1-4.) The trial court first concluded that there was no dispute that Licensee was asked to submit to a chemical test and that Licensee refused to submit to chemical testing after being warned that her refusal to do so would result in a suspension of her operating privilege, leaving the only issue before the court as whether Officer Molotsky had reasonable grounds to arrest Licensee for DUI. (Id. at 5.) Based on the evidence presented, the trial court determined that "[t]here is no evidence in the record upon which Officer Molotsky . . . could have formed a reasonable belief that [Licensee] was in physical control of the movement of her car" while intoxicated. (Id. at 7.) Although it accepted Officer Molotsky's testimony that Licensee was discovered slumped over and unconscious in the driver's seat of her vehicle with the keys in the ignition, the headlights on, and the engine running, and that Licensee was unsteady upon exiting the vehicle, smelled strongly of alcohol, and had bloodshot eyes, the trial court nevertheless concluded that the Department did not meet its burden of proof in the absence of any eyewitness testimony, or other objective evidence, that Licensee had actually driven her car while intoxicated. (Id. at 1-2, 7-8.) The trial court pointed out that Officer Molotsky did not testify that the pedestrian who reported Licensee had stated anything about Licensee driving, that Officer Molotsky had observed Licensee driving, or that Licensee had admitted to Officer Molotsky that she had been...