A lawyer representing a Luzerne County attorney who declined chemical testing for allegedly driving under the influence argued before the state Supreme Court that motorists suspected of DUI should be given a choice of being tested for blood alcohol content.
Attorney Albert Flora, who argued for John D. Nardone in Nardone v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before the justices in Harrisburg, contended that his client should not have been found to have refused testing after Nardone declined to undergo a chemical test but offered to alternatively take breath-alcohol and urinalysis tests. Flora argued that, under Section 1547(i) of the Motor Vehicle Code, motorists suspected of DUI should be allowed to request an alternative method of testing, including chemical, breath or urinalysis tests.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
