the Commonwealth Court held that the refusal of a deaf motorist to submit to chemical testing for driving under the influence was not the product of a knowing and conscious decision
How later courts described this case
- the Commonwealth Court held that the refusal of a deaf motorist to submit to chemical testing for driving under the influence was not the product of a knowing and conscious decision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DOYLE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority and write separately only to express my disagreement with the holding in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Peck, 132 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 509, 573 A.2d 645 (1990), for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in that case. Our appellate review both here and in Peck is identical.