# Commonwealth v. DeFaveri

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 3, 1986 · 352 Pa. Super. 96

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765359

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Peter R. DeFAVERI
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 3, 1986
- **Citations:** 352 Pa. Super. 96; 507 A.2d 398; 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 9480
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Spaeth, Rowley, Wieand, Former
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765359

## Opinion text

SPAETH, President Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the order reversing the trial court’s suppression of the blood test results because I understand our holding to be that there is no right to refuse chemical testing where there is probable cause to believe that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol and where there was “an accident in which the operator or passenger of any vehicle involved or a pedestrian required treatment at a medical facility or was killed.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a)(2). I make this observation because some portions of the majority opinion may be read more broadly, e.g., the statement that the right to revoke implied consent “is directed at motorists arrested for Driving Under the Influence [and] [t]hen and only then may a driver refuse to *105 submit to chemical testing.” Majority at 102. Also, I note that the hypothetical case stated by the majority, that “[a] sober driver who falls asleep, crosses the center line and strikes another car would have no right to refuse to be tested for drug or alcohol abuse,” Majority at 102-103, raises serious constitutional questions. The constitutionality of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a)(2) is not before us and I intimate no view on that issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765359. Public record. Not legal advice.