What Kind of Evidence Can Be Considered When Facing a 1543 Driving While Suspended Charge in Pennsylvania?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Oct 12, 2017 | 0 Comments

A "1543" offense in Pennsylvania is one of the most serious offenses that a driver in the Keystone State may face.  A Pennsylvania driver who is charged with a 1543 traffic offense will generally face such a situation because his or her license is suspended due to a non-DUI-related suspension, which is known as a 1543(a) charge, or due to a DUI-related suspension, which is known as a 1543(b) charge.  Both charges are serious and can cause severe consequences not only for a defendant's driving privileges, insurance rates, and related concerns, but potentially also put a defendant's freedom at risk.

When a driver in Pennsylvania is cited for driving with a suspended license, whether non-DUI or DUI-related, the frustration of getting caught will often become concern for what lies ahead.  Because the potential consequences for driving with a suspended license in Pennsylvania can be severe, it is critical to understand how the prosecution may proceed with its case against the person charged.

What needs to be proven against the driver in a 1543(a) case in Pennsylvania?

In a criminal trial for a violation of Section 1543(a), the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) must prove actual notice to the operator (driver) whose license has been suspended or revoked as an element of the crime.  Proof of actual notice beyond a reasonable doubt is not sufficient when the only evidence presented is that a notice was mailed.  However, when there is additional evidence, such as evidence that the defendant returned his or her driver's license to the Bureau of Traffic Safety pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1541, the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate actual notice.

Notice is a question of fact, and anything that proves knowledge or is legal evidence showing that knowledge exists may be sufficient.  Commonwealth v. Vetrini, 1999 Pa.Super. 148, 734 A.2d 404 (1999).  Factors to be considered to determine whether a driver licensee had actual notice of the suspension include evidence that PennDOT sent notice to his current address, and statements by the driver indicating knowledge, or any conduct demonstrating circumstantially or directly that he had knowledge of the suspension.

What situations will be considered "actual notice" in a driving with a suspended license case in Pennsylvania?

A defendant received actual notice of a license suspension when: 1) the Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations mailed official notice of the suspension to the defendant's current address; 2) the defendant had previously surrendered his license to the Bureau in response to a previous notice of suspension mailed to the same address; and 3) the defendant did not possess a driver's license when he was stopped for a motor vehicle violation.  These issues were considered by the Pennsylvania courts in the case of Commonwealth v. Gray, 356 Pa.Super. 299, 514 A.2d 621 (1986).

The Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed concerns regarding insufficient evidence to support a conviction for a driving while under a DUI-suspended license charge in the case of Commonwealth v. Martin, 346 Pa.Super. 129, 499 A.2d 344 (1985).  When the only additional evidence offered by the prosecution (known as the "Commonwealth" in such Pennsylvania court proceedings) was a notation on the defendant's certified driving record that an "affidavit" was received by the Department of Transportation, with nothing to indicate its specific nature, the motion for acquittal on the 1543(b) charge (driving with a DUI-suspended license) should have been granted.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Brewington, 779 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super. 2001), a defendant surrendered his license a month before his arrest for driving under a DUI suspension.  The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that when a defendant in Pennsylvania was placed on ARD (Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition) for the underling DUI case and at that time was told that his license suspension would be effective the date he surrendered it, notice was considered sufficient under Section 1543(b), even though PennDOT's notice had a different, later suspension date.

What happens if I do not have a license and I am caught driving with a suspended license in Pennsylvania?

To establish a defense to driving while under suspension, at a minimum, the defendant must produce a driver's license at the time of the offense or within 15 days thereafter.  Otherwise, the driver's failure to produce the license is presumptive knowledge of the suspension.  The Pennsylvania court case of Commonwealth v. Dietz, 423 Pa.Super. 366, 621 A.2d 160 (1993), established this principle.

In contrast, to sustain a conviction for driving under a non-DUI-related suspension, the prosecution (the "Commonwealth") may prove notice of the underlying suspension by establishing that the driver failed to produce a license when stopped, because that failure demonstrates knowledge of suspension.

Does not having a driver's license prove that I knew I was driving with a DUI-related suspension in Pennsylvania?

When a driver is charged with violating Section 1543(b) for driving under a suspension for a DUI-related offense, however, a failure to possess a license does not demonstrate that the driver knows that the underlying suspension is for a DUI-related offense.  Therefore, failure to produce a valid license when stopped does not preclude a driver charged with driving under a DUI-related suspension from asserting that the Commonwealth has failed to prove actual notice for the underlying DUI-related suspension.  This principle was addressed in the Pennsylvania court case of Commonwealth v. Taylor, 437 Pa.Super. 102, 649 A.2d 453 (1994).

Does a "habitual offender" in Pennsylvania have a defense to a 1543 charge?

A habitual offender in Pennsylvania will always have additional concerns if charged with driving with a suspended license.  A habitual offender may, however, be able to invoke a particular defense if specific circumstances allow.  Namely, Section 1542 of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Code addresses the "revocation of habitual offender's license."  Under 1542(d), the police officer is required verify the basis for the suspension or revocation with PennDOT before filing a citation for a violation of Section 1543 with the issuing authority.  Upon receiving the verification, the police officer is then required to cite the appropriate subsection of Section 1543 on the citation against the habitual offender.

A police officer's failure to obtain official verification prior to filing a citation is a defect in procedure to which Pa.R.Crim.P. 109 applies, and under these circumstances the driver licensee may challenge a § 1543 violation if he or she can demonstrate that he or she suffered "manifest and palpable harm" as a result of the police officer's non-compliance with 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(d).

Pennsylvania Attorney to Help with Driving While Suspended Charge | Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney

Facing a 1543 charge in Pennsylvania can be difficult; this will the case whether the 1543 charge involves a DUI-suspended driver's license or a driver's license that is suspended for other reasons.  Whether a person has to drive to and from work or school, or has personal or family obligations that require a valid driver's license, being convicted of a  driving while suspended traffic offense can have severe consequences.  In addition to the prospect of an additional period of license suspension, the prospect of incarceration is an unfortunate reality, and Pennsylvania Courts do not hesitate to sentence people to jail.  It is critical to make sure that all possible steps are taken to defend against a 1543(a) charge or a 1543(b) charge because depending on a person's circumstances, there can be hope for a better resolution than what is otherwise mandated by Pennsylvania law.

If you or a loved one have questions or concerns about a driving with a suspended license charge in Pennsylvania, including, but not limited to, Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, or Northampton County, contact our skilled Criminal Law Team today to learn how we can help.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia and across Pennsylvania as well as in New Jersey and nationwide. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. With unparalleled experience occupying several roles in the criminal justice system outside of being an attorney, Joseph D. Lento can give you valuable behind-the-scenes insight as to what is happening during all phases of the legal process. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide. In the courtroom and in life, attorney Joseph D. Lento stands up when the bell rings!


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

The LLF Law Firm Team has decades of experience successfully resolving clients' criminal charges in Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania counties. If you are having any uncertainties about what the future may hold for you or a loved one, contact the LLF Law Firm today! Our Criminal Defense Team will go above and beyond the needs of any client, and will fight until the final bell rings.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.