Vasquez-Santiago v. Penn DOT – Cmwlth. Court – en banc – January 4, 2022
Held: Licensee’s lack of understanding of the English language prevented him from making a knowing and conscious refusal of a chemical blood test because he could not understand the consequences of a refusal. The trial court court’s “finding of an insurmountable language barrier is supported by substantial evidence.”
From the opinion:
The Licensee’s inability to understand the office as he read the DL-26B Form in English prevented Licensee from understanding the consequences of his refusal to submit to chemical testing. “The law has always required that the police must tell the arrestee of the consequences of a refusal to take the test so that he can make a knowing and conscious choice.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873l 877 (Pa. 1989). To the extent that Martinovic suggests that it is “inconsequential” whether a licensee understands those consequences, Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30, 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), we regard this language as dicta, and conclude that it is not consistent with applicable precedent.
