Award-Winning Philadelphia DUI Defense Lawyers

DUI is one of the most common criminal charges seen in Philadelphia Municipal Court as well as in the suburbs, but many people do not realize how severe the potential consequences have become. These potential consequences have only increased in recent years, and DUI convictions are now punishable with mandatory jail time, the loss of your driver’s license, and even a felony record if you have been charged with DUI before. It seems like nearly every year the Pennsylvania Legislature increases the penalties for driving under the influence, and a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol can have lasting negative consequences.

Fortunately, there are often strong defenses in DUI cases, and these cases are much more complicated than you might think. Given the consequences of a conviction and the fact that you may have a good defense to the charges, you should not put your license, freedom, and reputation on the line with anything but the best drunk driving attorneys in the area. 

The Philadelphia criminal defense and DUI attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have represented countless clients facing DUI charges throughout Philadelphia and the surrounding counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. We know the intricacies and nuances of Pennsylvania's complicated DUI law and have successfully defended clients in thousands of Driving Under the Influence cases over the years. We have won cases at trial, in pre-trial motions to suppress and checkpoint motions, and through the use of speedy trial motions. Our drunk driving attorneys are well versed on the laws and regulations surrounding breath tests, blood tests, refusals, standard field sobriety tests, calibration, and the constitutional issues relating to motor vehicle stops and DUI checkpoints, so that you can feel confident you are being represented by the best.

Driving Under the Influence convictions can have devastating consequences in terms of mandatory minimum jail sentences, the loss of driving privileges for extended periods of time, substantial fines, and a potential for issues with employment and professional licensing. If you are facing drunk driving charges in the Greater Philadelphia area, do not trust your defense to a lawyer who focuses on general litigation with limited experience in Driving Under the Influence offenses. 

The consequences of DWI are far more severe than they used to be, and if your lawyer does not properly handle the case, you could lose your freedom and your livelihood. We know how to fight these cases. If you or a loved one have been charged with a DUI or DWI, speak with one of our drunk driving lawyers today. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning defense attorneys. We are experienced and understanding criminal lawyers who can help you evaluate all of your options and fight for the best possible result.

Speak with a Philadelphia, PA DUI Lawyer Today

Types of DUI Charges in Philadelphia, PA

Pennsylvania's Driving Under the Influence statute is codified at 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3802. There are a number of different subsections to the statute which create different types of DUI offenses. In general, there are two main categories of drunk or drugged driving offenses in Pennsylvania: Driving under the Influence of alcohol and Driving under the Influence of a controlled substance or illegal drug. Both types of DWI offenses are treated very differently in a number of ways, so it is important to understand the distinctions between them. 

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol

There are two ways that the prosecution may prove an alcohol-based DUI. 

1. Based on Observations
Under 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3802(a)(1), the prosecution may demonstrate that the defendant was driving under the influence based solely on the observations of the police or other eyewitnesses. In order to prove a violation of (a)(1), the prosecution must show that the defendant drove, operated, or was in physical control of the movement of a vehicle and incapable of safe driving due to being under the influence of alcohol. Section (a)(1) of the drunk driving statute makes no reference to the defendant's Blood Alcohol Content or BAC. The defendant may be convicted based solely on the observations of the arresting officer. 

For example, a police officer witness could testify that she stopped the defendant because the defendant's car was swerving in and out of its lane and failed to stop at multiple stop signs. Once the defendant was pulled over, the officer smelled the odor of alcohol and noticed that the defendant had slurred speech and seemed unsteady when reaching for his paperwork. When the officer asked whether the defendant had been drinking, he replied that he had one or two beers. Assuming the judge or jury believes the testimony of the officer, then they could be justified in concluding that the defendant was 1) driving a motor vehicle and 2) incapable of operating it due to being under the influence of alcohol. This type of case is commonly called an "observation" or "(a)(1)" Driving Under the Influence case. 

2. Blood Sample or Breathalyzer 

This type of alcohol-based drunk driving case in Pennsylvania occurs when police have stopped the defendant and obtained a blood or breath sample from the defendant. If the blood or breath test shows that the defendant was above the legal limit of a .08 BAC, then the defendant would be guilty of Driving Under the Influence. 

In a prosecution under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802(a)(2), (b), and (c), it does not matter if the defendant was actually unable to drive safely or committed any motor vehicle violations. Depending on the circumstances, those issues could be raised at a motion to suppress hearing, but they will not be a defense at trial. If the judge denies the motion to suppress, then the defendant could be convicted of DUI solely for driving with a BAC above .08 or a controlled substance in his or her blood regardless of whether the defendant commited any motor vehicle violations or had the ability to drive safely. 

There are three tiers of BAC with escalating penalties under this statute. (a)(2) punishes individuals with BACs from .08 to .10 and is a Tier I DUI. (b) punishes those with BACs from .10 to .16 and is a Tier II offense. The highest tier, under section (c), punishes those with a BAC of .16 or above as well as those who are convicted under (a)(1) and refused chemical testing.

The consequences of a conviction vary tremendously depending on the tier of the offense. For example, a first-offense Tier I conviction does not involve a driver's license suspension, whereas a first-offense Tier III conviction requires the sentencing judge to impose a one year driver's license suspension and a mandatory 72-hour jail sentence. Sentences also become even more severe for second and third offenses, and the legislature has recently made it so that some DUI offenses will be prosecuted as felonies.

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs

Unlike Pennsylvania's alcohol-based drunk driving statutes, the DUI sections which deal with drugs have no requirement that the defendant be unable to safely operate a vehicle or has a BAC corresponding with some level of impairment. Instead, the statute prohibits driving with any detectable level of a controlled substance for which you do not have a controlled substance in your blood. There are some exceptions for Schedule IV controlled substances like Xanax and other benzodiazepines, but under Pennsylvania law, you can be convicted of DUI even if you are not high.

Some drugs remain detectable in your bloodstream long after you stop feeling their effects. If you regularly use marijuana, you may have detectable levels of marijuana metabolite in your blood for thirty days or more, which means that if you are arrested for DUI and blood tested, you could test positive for marijuana metabolite and be convicted even if you have not smoked marijuana in a month. Even though everyone in the courtroom is likely to agree that you were not actually high - the police, DA, and DA's expert witness will all recognize that the presence of marijuana metabolite does not mean you could not drive safely -  it is still illegal to drive with marijuana metabolite in your blood. Because there is no requirement that the defendant was actually driving while high, Pennsylvania's drugged driving statute penalizes any illegal use of a controlled substance. It does not just punish drunk driving.

Is a medical marijuana card a defense to driving under the influence of marijuana?

No. Even with the legalization of medical marijuana in Pennsylvania, the appellate courts have continued to hold that the presence of any marijuana or marijuana metabolite in a driver’s blood while they are driving renders that driver in violation of the DUI laws. This is true even if you have a medical marijuana card. It is important to remember that having a medical marijuana card does not mean that you can drive while under the influence of marijuana or if you have smoked marijuana recently. This is true even if you are not high at the time that you were driving.

Classifications of Driving While Under the Influence of Drugs

There are four sections of the Pennsylvania statute which deal with driving while under the influence of drugs. 

1.  75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving, operating, or being in physical control of the movement of the vehicle with any level or metabolite of a Schedule I substance in your blood or any Schedule II or III substance or metabolite without a prescription. Schedule I controlled substances are drugs for which the Federal Government has determined that there are no medically appropriate uses. Although many states now have legal medical marijuana, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance according to the federal government. Therefore, driving with any level of marijuana or its metabolites in your blood means you are DUI in Pennsylvania. 

Section (d)(1) provides a per se prohibition on driving with certain drugs in your system. It does not require the prosecution to prove that you could not drive safely. It only requires evidence that you were driving or in physical control of the movement of a vehicle and that you had a prohibited substance or the metabolite in your blood. 

2. 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3802(d)(2), makes it illegal to drive when the "[t]he individual is under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual's ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle." This section is similar to the (a)(1) section for alcohol because it could lead to a conviction even where the police never obtained a blood sample from the defendant or if the blood result is suppressed at a motion to suppress hearing.

For example, imagine an officer pulls a defendant over for swerving, the defendant is visibly under the influence of some sort of controlled substance like heroin, and a syringe is found in the car. In this scenario, it could be possible for a court to convict the defendant under (d)(2) even if the defendant refuses a blood test. Further, (d)(2) could be used to charge someone with driving under the influence of a controlled substance for which they have a prescription. If you have a prescription for Xanax, but the Xanax makes you sleepy and unable to drive safely or you took too many, you could be found guilty of DUI under section (d)(2). However, the officer's observations of your ability to drive safely and any defense evidence will become critical in a prosecution under this section. It is not a per se offense like (d)(1) because (d)(2) requires the Commonwealth to show more than just the presence of a controlled substance in your blood. Instead, the Commonwealth must show that you could not drive safely. 

3. 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3802(d)(3) involves mixing drugs and alcohol and makes it illegal to drive under the influence of any combination of drugs and alcohol which impairs the person's ability to drive safely. For example, if you normally take Xanax with a prescription, you would not be driving under the influence if you are still able to drive safely. But if you add alcohol to the mix, having a prescription for the Xanax may no longer be a defense. Like section (d)(2), (d)(3) requires some sort of evidence that you were not able to safely drive the vehicle. In this type of case, it may make sense to bring in an expert witness to testify that the combination of a prescription medication with a minor amount of alcohol would not have the consequences that the Commonwealth alleges it would.

4. 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3802(d)(4) prohibits driving while under the influence of a solvent or noxious substance. Prosecutions under this section are rare, but like (d)(1), (d)(4) does not require any evidence that the defendant was unable to drive safely or operate the motor vehicle. 

Mandatory Minimums for DUI Convictions

The two most common questions our drunk driving attorneys receive from clients are whether they are going to lose their license and whether they are going to jail. Every case is different, and in some scenarios, there are defenses to the charges or the possibility of negotiating a non-custodial sentence with the prosecution. However, the reality is that Pennsylvania has some of the most severe mandatory minimums for a DUI conviction of any state in the United States. Unless you qualify for ARD, even some first-offense DUI convictions may require the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration. In order to have the best chance to preserve your freedoms, do not wait to contact our experienced drunk driving attorneys to fight for you.

Mandatory Penalties for First-Offense DUI Convictions

DUI offenses are divided into tiers. There are three tiers of offenses which depend on the substance involved, the defendant's BAC, and whether the defendant refused chemical testing. The following penalties went into effect November 8, 2022.

Tier I - General Impairment penalties (Undetermined BAC, .08 to .099% BAC) 

No prior DUI offenses

• ungraded misdemeanor

• up to 6 months’ probation

• $300 fine

• alcohol highway safety school

• treatment when ordered

• No driver’s license suspension required

• No ignition interlock device required

1 prior DUI offense

• ungraded misdemeanor

• 12 month license suspension

• 5 days to 6 months jail time

• $300 to $2,500 fine

• alcohol highway safety school

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

2 prior DUI offenses

• 2nd degree misdemeanor

• 12 month license suspension

• 10 days to 2 years prison

• $500 to $5,000 fine

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

3 or more prior DUI offenses

• 3rd degree felony

• up to seven years’ incarceration

• ten day mandatory minimum jail sentence

• $500 fine

• 18 month license suspension

• 12 month ignition interlock requireent

The new law creates a higher set of penalties for those having higher BAC levels. It allows for treatment at all levels and requires alcohol highway safety school for all first and second time offenders.

Tier II - High BAC penalties (.10 to .159% BAC) and DUI Involving an Accident or a Minor in the Vehicle

No prior DUI offenses

• ungraded misdemeanor

• 12 month license suspension

• 48 hours to 6 months prison

• $500 to $5,000 fine

• alcohol highway safety school

• treatment when ordered

• 12 months’ ignition interlock requirement following completion of license suspension

1 prior DUI offense

• ungraded misdemeanor

• 12 month suspension

• 30 days to 6 months prison

• $750 to $5,000 fine

• alcohol highway safety school

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

2 prior DUI offenses

• 1st degree misdemeanor

• 18 month license suspension

• 90 days to 5 years prison

• $1,500 to $10,000 fine

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

• permanent loss of right to possess a firearm under federal law

3 prior DUI offenses

• 1st degree misdemeanor

• 18 month license suspension

• 90 days to 5 years prison

• $1,500 to $10,000 fine

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

4 or more prior DUI offenses

• 3rd degree felony

• up to 7 years’ incarceration

• one year mandatory minimum state prison sentence

• $1500 fine

• 18 month license suspension

• 12 month ignition interlock requirement

• permanent bar on firearm possession under federal law

Tier III - Highest BAC penalties (.16% and higher), Controlled Substance/Drugs, and DUI Conviction with Refusal

No prior DUI offenses

• ungraded misdemeanor

• 12 month license suspension

• 72 hours to 6 months prison

• $1,000 to $5,000 fine

• alcohol highway safety school

• treatment when ordered

• 12 month ignition interlock requirement

1 prior DUI offense

• 1st degree misdemeanor

• 18 month license suspension

• 90 days to 5 years prison

• $1,500 to $10,00 fine

• alcohol highway safety school

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

• permanent prohibition on possession of a firearm under federal law

2 prior DUI offenses

• 3rd degree felony

• 18 month license suspension

• 1 to 5 years prison

• $2,500 to $10,000

• treatment when ordered

• 1 year ignition interlock

• permanent prohibition on possession of a firearm under federal law

3 prior DUI offenses

• 2nd degree felony

• up to ten years in prison

• one year mandatory minimum prison sentence

• $2,500 fine

• 18 month license suspension

• 12 month ignition interlock

• permanent prohibition on possession of a firearm under federal law

In 2019, a new law went into effect which makes Driving Under the Influence a felony of the third degree when the defendant has three or more prior DUI convictions or the defendant has a prior conviction for homicide by vehicle while DUI. In these cases, the charge becomes a felony of the third degree instead of a first-degree misdemeanor. The law was amended again in 2022 to make a third DUI at the highest tier a third degree felony and a forth or subsequent DUI a second degree felony.

As the law is written, drivers under the influence of controlled substances and those who refuse breath or chemical testing are subject to the highest BAC category penalties. Under recent United States Supreme Court and Pennsylvania Superior Court caselaw, however, it appears that courts may no longer penalize the refusal to submit to a blood draw as a Tier III offense. Refusals to submit to breath testing are still punished at the highest tier.

Additionally, the legislature recently amended the law to require ignition interlocks, even for first-time offenders in Tier II and Tier III cases. But this same amendment allowed for many offenders to receive special ignition interlock licenses which allow them to continue driving despite the license suspension provided that they install the ignition interlock devices as required. These cases are still very serious given the possibility of receiving a one year mandatory minimum jail sentence in a state prison for a third offense. Additionally, the newest laws require that DUI sentences be served consecutively. That means that if you are found guilty of a second and third offense at the same time, you must serve the 90 day mandatory minimum for the second offense and the one year mandatory minimum for the third offense consecutively for a mandatory minimum of one year and ninety days in state prison. Previously, judges could run these sentences concurrently - meaning at the same time.

Consequences like these are not worth risking on inexperienced drunk driving attorneys, so if you are in need of representation, contact the Goldstein Mehta LLC team to help you win your case.

Common Defenses to Driving Under the Influence Charges in Pennsylvania

It is a common misconception that there are no defenses to DUI charges. Many people believe that if they were driving and failed a field sobriety test or chemical test, then they have no choice but to plead guilty and hope for the best. Fortunately, this is simply not true. Pennsylvania's DUI statutes are incredibly complex, and there are a number of potential defenses to a drunk driving charge which range from pre-trial motions to defenses at trial. With the right drunk driving lawyers by your side, you can create the best defense for your specific case.

Pre-Trial Motions in DUI Cases

First, many cases are won and lost through the use of pre-trial motions. The motion to suppress is extremely common in DUI cases, and our criminal lawyers have successfully litigated motions to suppress the evidence as well as motions in limine when the police have failed to follow the rules and regulations surrounding DUI law. In order for the prosecution to introduce the observations of the arresting police officer and the results of a blood or breath test, the prosecution must be able to show that the evidence was obtained legally. This means that the police must have had probable cause of a motor vehicle violation or reasonable suspicion of some other criminal activity in order to make the initial stop of the motorist.

In order to make an arrest and transport the motorist to the police station for blood or breath testing, the police must also have had probable cause that the motorist was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In many cases, we can successfully get the results of the blood or breath tests or even the observations of the officer excluded if we can show that the police did not have a legitimate basis for the initial stop or sufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. We are also often able to challenge the placement of checkpoints because the police frequently fail to follow the law regarding checkpoints and do not have the necessary data to justify the location of the checkpoint. 

There are a number of other potential pre-trial motions which could provide a defense to DUI charges. For example, in order to use the results of the breath test, the police must take the test within two hours of seeing the defendant driving, and they must also observe the defendant for 20 minutes prior to administering the test in order to make sure that the defendant does not consume any other alcohol, burp, or vomit because these actions could influence the results of the test. The police department must also follow strict rules and procedures regarding the calibration of the breath testing equipment, and if they violate any of these rules, it could be possible to have the evidence excluded and the case dismissed. The law surrounding refusals and the warnings that must be read to motorists prior to a blood draw have also recently changed dramatically and could be helpful to your case. It’s crucial that you have a criminal defense attorney who knows these laws thoroughly and can use them in your defense.

Our drunk driving lawyers are experienced and knowledgeable of the rules and regulations that the police must follow both in terms of the equipment they use, the testing procedures, and the constitutional laws they must follow when making a stop and/or arrest. We also work with expert witnesses in many cases to challenge the Commonwealth's evidence of intoxication or that they followed the proper testing procedures. Therefore, we are able to use pre-trial motions to make sure that your rights were not violated.   

Trial Defenses to DUI Charges

Secondly, there may be defenses to DUI at trial. If the defendant is charged based only on the observations of the officer and there are no test results or the test results have been suppressed, then it can be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was incapable of safe driving. If the police officer did not observe a number of significant traffic violations or evidence of reckless driving, then the mere fact that the defendant smelled like alcohol or marijuana or admitted to using an intoxicating substance will not be enough. Instead, the prosecution must actually prove that the defendant could not drive safely, which is a high burden to meet in the absence of evidence that the defendant caused or nearly caused an accident.

Further, our Philadelphia drunk driving lawyers are often able to show through cross examination that the signs that the Commonwealth suggests are evidence of intoxication are simply due to nervousness caused by a police encounter or other normal characteristics of the defendant, such as a medical condition. In other cases, we are able to use the results of our own investigation or inconsistencies in the police paperwork to challenge the credibility of the police officer as to whether the defendant was really exhibiting any signs of impairment.

Lastly, actual operation of the vehicle is an issue that frequently comes up in DUI cases. The Philadelphia police charge a large number of people with DUI each year, even in cases where no one ever saw the defendant actually operating the vehicle. For example, if the police come upon a parked car with the engine running and the defendant sleeping behind the wheel, they may often arrest the motorist. Or if the police arrive at the scene of an accident and no one is in the car when they arrive, the police may improperly assume that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle. In these types of cases, our drunk driving attorneys may be able to successfully challenge the assumption that the defendant ever operated the vehicle. If no one saw the defendant behind the wheel, then the police may not simply guess that the defendant actually operated the car. Likewise, if the defendant was merely asleep with the vehicle in park and there is no other evidence that the defendant moved the vehicle while intoxicated, then depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to show that the defendant was simply sleeping the intoxication off before going home. 

The bottom line is that our Philadelphia drunk driving lawyers have tried and won countless DUI cases because of our success in recognizing the defenses to this serious charge and bringing pre-trial motions or winning at trial. You should not assume that just because you have been arrested, you have to plead guilty. Instead, you should call one of our experienced and understanding DUI defense attorneys at 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session. Each case is different, and there may be defenses in your case. 

ARD and Other Diversionary Programs for First-Time DUI Offenders

There are a number of potential diversionary programs which can help a first-time offender avoid conviction, jail time, and potentially even a driver's license suspension. In Philadelphia, these programs typically include ARD, DUI Treatment Court, and Intermediate Punishment. Although Intermediate Punishment and Treatment court may result in convictions, they typically result in a significantly reduced jail sentence followed by a period of house arrest. Therefore, they may be good options for a defendant who is facing a significant mandatory minimum due to prior DUI convictions. We have written extensively about pre-trial diversionary programs in previous articles, and you can learn more about them here. 

Our top-rated Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended a wide range of criminal charges in addition to DUI/DWI, including sex crimes, theft crimes, gun charges, and more. Contact us to discuss the specifics of your case and start fighting for your rights today.

Related Articles On DUI: 

We Can Help With DUI Cases

Don't just assume you have to plead guilty and are going to lose your license. Call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our Philadelphia DUI Defense Attorneys.