explaining that it is now virtually.universally accepted that a person with a blood alcohol percent of .10 should not be driving, and that such percentage should be accepted as prima facie evidence of intoxication
How later courts described this case
- explaining that it is now virtually.universally accepted that a person with a blood alcohol percent of .10 should not be driving, and that such percentage should be accepted as prima facie evidence of intoxication
- upholding the imposition of absolute criminal liability where the Commonwealth failed to charge or prove culpability pursu ant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(4), driving with a blood alcohol of .10%, and the defendant was sentenced to less than ninety days imprisonment
- finding that the General Assembly has a compelling interest in protecting citizens against drunk drivers
- stating “there is no constitutional, statutory or common law right to the consumption of any quantity of alcohol before driving”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County declaring 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(4) unconstitutionally vague must be reversed, and the case remanded for trial. Section 3731(a)(4), which makes it unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle while “the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater,” neither “ ‘fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute,’ ” nor “ ‘is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions,’ ” Commonwealth v. Burt, 490 Pa. 173, 177-78 , 415 A.2d 89, 91 (1980), quoting Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 390 , 99 S.Ct. 675, 683 , 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979). *
With respect to the concern that the statute imposes criminal liability without fault, section 3731(a)(4) requires that a person’s blood-alcohol level equal or exceed 0.10%, and thus sanctions only those who have chosen to drive after having knowingly consumed alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, section 3731(a)(4) does not violate due process for want of a scienter requirement, see Commonwealth v. Field, 490 Pa. 519 , 417 A.2d 160 (1980), and the majority’s discussion of whether absolute liability may constitutionally be imposed is inappropriate.
It was erroneous for the trial court to have considered a facial challenge to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(4). Because section 3731(a)(4) does not reach constitutionally protected conduct, appellee’s vagueness claim is to be examined "‘in the light of the facts of the case at hand,’ ” Commonwealth v. Burt, supra, 490 Pa. at 178 n. 5, 415 A.2d at 92 n. 5, quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550 , 95 S.Ct. 710, 714 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975), facts which include, according to the Commonwealth, appellee’s visible intoxication and 0.13% blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest.