Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
Operation of a Motor Vehicle
In determining whether an officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a motorist was in "actual physical control" of a vehicle, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the location of the vehicle, whether the engine was running and whether there was other evidence indicating that the motorist had driven the vehicle at some point prior to the arrival of the police. There must be some objective evidence that the motorist exercised control over the movement of the vehicle at the time he was intoxicated. Banner v. Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439, 446-447, 737 A.2d 1203, 1207 (1999).
In assessing whether PennDOT met this burden, the court considers the totality of the circumstances and determines, as a matter of law, whether a person in the position of the arresting officer could reasonably reach this conclusion. Helt v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 856 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) ( en banc ). The same quantum of proof is not necessary to establish probable cause for a criminal prosecution, and it is not necessary the police officer's belief ultimately prove correct. Id.
Reasonable grounds exist if the officer could have concluded the licensee drove the vehicle. Helt. An officer's belief that the licensee was driving will justify a request to submit to chemical testing if one reasonable interpretation of the circumstances supports the officer's belief. Id. Once the trial court accepts as credible an officer's testimony regarding his observations of the licensee, it cannot substitute its judgment as to what inferences should be drawn from the circumstances. Id. "[T]he test is whether the officer's conclusion was reasonable as a matter of law, not whether [the trial court] might have concluded otherwise had [it] stood in the officer's shoes." Id. at 266.
Additionally, a police officer's reasonable grounds can be based on information received from a third party. Gasper v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 674 A.2d 1200 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).
It is not necessary for an arresting officer to actually observe the licensee operating the vehicle, nor does the existence of reasonable alternative conclusions bar the arresting officer's actual belief from being reasonable. See Keane v. Dep't of Transp., 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 220, 561 A.2d 359 (1989).
The term "operate" requires evidence of actual physical control of the vehicle to be determined based upon the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Anthony B. Williams, 871 A.2d 254, 259 (Pa.Super.2005). "Our precedent indicates that a combination of the following factors is required in determining whether a person had 'actual physical control' of an automobile: the motor running, the location of the vehicle, and additional evidence showing that the defendant had driven the vehicle." Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Woodruff, 447 Pa.Super. 222, 668 A.2d 1158, 1161 (1995)).
The Commonwealth can establish that a defendant had "actual physical control" of a vehicle through wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Anthony B. Williams, 871 A.2d 254, 259 (Pa.Super.2005). See also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 833 A.2d 260 (Pa.Super.2003).