A driver pulled over for a suspected DUI does not have the right to an attorney before taking a blood test, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
Ray D. McCoy Jr., of Harrisburg, was pulled over on suspicion of DUI in 2004 and later convicted in a non-jury trial. In his appeal, he argued through attorney John B. Mancke that because he was subject to stiffer penalties for refusing a blood draw or Breathalyzer, he was entitled to an attorney's advice before consenting.
In its unanimous ruling, the court cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel kicks in only when judicial proceedings begin.
"Submission to a chemical test upon being stopped for suspected DUI is an evidence-gathering circumstance, prior to the filing of any formal adversarial judicial proceedings, and as such does not constitute a critical stage for purposes of the right to counsel," Justice J. Michael Eakin wrote in the court's opinion.
Justice Eakin also pointed out that under Pennsylvania's "Informed Consent Law," getting behind the wheel issues consent to a blood-alcohol test if a law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion of DUI.
Mr. McCoy, 62, crashed his car into a guardrail Feb. 1, 2004. He was arrested and taken to a hospital after police noticed slurred speech, glassy eyes and an odor of alcohol. A blood-alcohol test showed his blood-alcohol level to be 0.233, well above the legal limit in Pennsylvania.
An individual with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or greater is considered legally drunk.
Because it was Mr. McCoy's second Pittsburgh DUI offense, he was sentenced to 90 days to 18 months in jail. The sentence was stayed pending Mr. McCoy's appeal.
