75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3802

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that the driver consumed alcohol and that it impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Allen, L. · filed 2020-03-31(a)(1)

The statute requires proof of alcohol consumption.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows the fact-finder to consider a later BAC result without relating it back to the time of driving, alongside other evidence of impairment.

Com. v. Anthony, R. · filed 2020-02-28(a)(1)

We emphasize that our affirmance of the trial court’s finding that defendant was guilty of a DUI-general impairment under Section 3802(a)(1) did not require the Commonwealth to relate Appellant’s BAC at 5:22 a.m. back to when he last drove at around 3:00 a.m. Instead, as fact-finder, the trial court had the authority to view the BAC in conjunction with the other evidence and accord the BAC whatever weight it found appropriate.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction when evidence shows that alcohol rendered a person incapable of safely driving.

Com. v. Hitchcock, E., Jr. · filed 2020-05-06(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the finding that appellant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree rendering him incapable of safe driving under Section § 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(a)(1) allows substantial impairment to be proved without evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol level.

Com. v. Goldsmith, V. · filed 2020-05-19(a)(1)

Therefore, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol level is not necessary to show substantial impairment under Section 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the accused’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Brideson, V. · filed 2020-10-09(d)(2)

Rather, the Commonwealth must simply prove that, while driving or operating a vehicle, the accused was under the influence of a drug to a degree that impaired his or her ability to safely drive that vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drug use impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely; officer observations and field sobriety evidence can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Coleman, D. · filed 2020-10-21(d)(2)

Viewing the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the court’s verdict that Appellant was not capable of driving safely due to his admitted use of marijuana and alcohol.

Police testimony and failed sobriety tests can establish the impairment required by Section 3802(d)(2) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Com. v. Dodson, T. · filed 2020-10-22(d)(2)

When viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we find that the Commonwealth has met its burden by establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant exhibited the impairment required under Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(a)(1) allows evidence of a driver’s conduct, appearance, and manner of driving to establish alcohol impairment at the time of driving.

Com. v. Champagnie, D. · filed 2020-07-23(a)(1)

Construed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he drove his vehicle away from the intermediate school on February 22, 2018.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows a general-impairment conviction when signs of intoxication establish that alcohol made the driver unable to drive safely.

Com. v. Little, D. · filed 2020-07-27(a)(1)

Here, the trial testimony established the indicia of intoxication necessary for the factfinder to conclude that Appellant was unable to drive safely. See Segida, supra; 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that a person operated a vehicle while alcohol impaired their ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Miller, M. · filed 2020-08-20(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as well as the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, we find the evidence sufficient to support Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that the driver was impaired while driving, but the Commonwealth need not prove that the driver consumed no alcohol afterward.

Com. v. Nardizzi, J. · filed 2020-12-07(a)(1)

Despite Appellant’s claim to the contrary, the Commonwealth did not have the burden of proving that Appellant did not drink after he stopped driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) does not require proof of a specific blood alcohol level; it requires evidence that alcohol rendered the person incapable of safely driving.

Com. v. Haines, J. · filed 2021-03-02(a)(1)

In any event, we note that the crime of DUI—general impairment, which is the DUI charge to which Appellant pled guilty, requires no proof of a specific BAC, but merely evidence that he had consumed “a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction based on evidence that alcohol made the driver unable to drive safely, even without blood test results.

Com. v. Maneri, P. · filed 2021-07-13(a)(1)

We agree with the court’s analysis. Here, the trial testimony established the indicia of intoxication necessary for the fact-finder to conclude that Appellant was unable to drive safely.

Section 3802(a)(1) does not treat avoiding a crash during a high-speed chase as proof that a driver was capable of driving safely.

Com. v. Banks, C. · filed 2021-05-13(a)(1)

Appellant’s argument that he managed to maintain a high speed chase for many miles without crashing demonstrated ... that he had in fact been driving safely is absurd.

Section 3802(d)(3) permits proof through circumstantial evidence that the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impaired a person’s ability to drive safely; expert testimony is not required.

Com. v. Myers, A. · filed 2021-11-19(d)(3)

We are cognizant that the fact-finder may establish the element of causation, without the benefit of expert testimony, see Graham, supra, by relying on wholly circumstantial evidence, including Myers’ refusal to submit to testing.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol made a person unable to drive safely at the time the person drove.

Com. v. Andrews, M. · filed 2021-10-14(a)(1)

Section 3802(a)(1) is an “at the time of driving” offense, i.e., an offense requiring proof that the defendant was “driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle during the time when he or she was rendered incapable of safely doing so due to the consumption of alcohol.”

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a finding that alcohol made a driver incapable of driving safely based on observations of intoxication and field sobriety performance.

Com. v. Knisley, T. · filed 2022-01-27(a)(1)

The evidence presented during the bench trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to enable the trial court to conclude that Knisley was incapable of safely driving his vehicle due to his alcohol consumption.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after drinking enough alcohol to make the driver incapable of driving safely; officer testimony corroborated by video can provide sufficient evidence of impairment.

Com. v. Bare, Z. · filed 2022-03-01(a)(1)

With regard to DUI (general impairment), “[a]n individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). ... Based on our review of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, we discern no error of law in the trial court’s determination regarding sufficiency of evidence supporting Appellant’s convictions.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof of alcohol impairment through circumstantial evidence, without an eyewitness to the driving.

Com. v. Levay, C. · filed 2022-08-08(a)(1)

The Commonwealth presented sufficient, circumstantial evidence to prove Appellant imbibed enough alcohol such that he was rendered incapable of safely operating the motorcycle.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after consuming enough alcohol to become incapable of safely driving; circumstantial evidence can establish that impairment.

Com. v. McCauley, J. · filed 2022-09-22(a)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial, including all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, was sufficient to establish that McCauley operated his vehicle after he consumed enough alcohol that he was rendered incapable of safely operating his vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require proof that a drug concentration exceeds the therapeutic range when the evidence establishes impairment of safe driving.

Com. v. Daubert, L. · filed 2022-10-17(d)(2)

Clearly the Commonwealth was not required to prove, as an element of this offense, that the concentration of methadone in Appellant’s blood was higher than 560 nanograms per milliliter—the high end of the therapeutic range according to Dr. Coyer.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol impaired a driver to the point of being incapable of safe driving.

Com. v. Jordan, R. · filed 2022-12-19(a)(1)

This evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant was driving while substantially impaired by alcohol and therefore under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug impaired driving through circumstantial evidence, including drug use and an officer’s observations shortly after driving, without chemical testing or expert testimony.

Com. v. Shower, T., Jr. · filed 2023-06-07(d)(2)

We discern no legal error in the PCRA court’s conclusion that there was no arguable merit to a potential appellate argument that the evidence was insufficient to show to show Appellant’s impairment under Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving when alcohol consumption impairs a person’s judgment enough to make safe operation of a vehicle impossible.

Com. v. Ricketts, C., Jr. · filed 2024-02-27(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, see Randall, supra, there was sufficient evidence to prove that, due to alcohol consumption, Ricketts’ judgment was impaired to a degree that made him incapable of safely operating his motor vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(3) requires proof that the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impaired the person’s ability to drive safely, but does not require evidence of actual unsafe driving.

Com. v. Jaszczak, R. · filed 2024-03-15(d)(3)

However, evidence of Jaszczak’s unsafe driving was not required to sustain the conviction under Section 3802(d)(3).

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof that alcohol made a driver incapable of safe driving through circumstantial evidence, even without field sobriety or blood tests.

Com. v. Porter, G. · filed 2024-05-29(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, we conclude the evidence sufficiently establishes Appellant’s consumption of alcohol substantially impaired his ability to safely operate the vehicle.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after drinking enough alcohol to become incapable of driving safely; BAC evidence, expert testimony, and an officer’s observations can establish impairment.

Com. v. Hughes, D. · filed 2025-05-19(a)(1)

Appellant was also convicted of DUI, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain this conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that a person drove after drinking enough alcohol to become incapable of driving safely; credible testimony about signs of intoxication and failure to maintain a lane can support a conviction.

Com. v. Spahr, J. · filed 2024-12-30(a)(1)

Furthermore, the troopers’ testimony – which the trial court credited, and which we take as true for purposes of this appeal, pursuant to our standard of review – supports the verdict. In addition to their testimony about visible signs of Spahr’s intoxication, cited by the trial court, the troopers also stated that they observed Spahr fail to maintain a single lane “while negotiating a right-hand curve in that roadway.” N.T., Trial, at 6. Spahr’s first issue does not warrant relief.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction when evidence of unsafe driving and signs of intoxication establishes that alcohol made the driver incapable of safely operating a vehicle.

Com. v. Migliuolo, A. · filed 2025-05-12(a)(1)

This testimony, on its own, is more than sufficient to establish the offense of DUI – general impairment.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol rendered the vehicle operator incapable of safely driving; signs of impairment and field sobriety tests can establish that condition.

Com. v. Lincoln, M. · filed 2025-07-08(a)(1)

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we determine that the Commonwealth met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Lincoln was under the influence of alcohol to such a degree as to render him incapable of safely driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that a person drove after drinking enough alcohol to become incapable of driving safely.

Com. v. Williams, D. · filed 2025-08-18(a)(1)

To prove DUI – general impairment under Section 3802(a)(1), the Commonwealth must establish the driver was in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle “after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual [was] rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). ... Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we conclude sufficient evidence supports Williams’s convictions of DUI, careless driving, and driving within a single lane, but fails to prove reckless driving.

Section 3802 applies the same evidentiary standard for proving impairment under its general alcohol, drug, and combined alcohol and drug provisions.

Com. v. Pascoe, N. · filed 2025-10-01

In sum, pursuant to Griffith and Graham, for the DUI offenses set forth in 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3), we apply the same evidentiary standard to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to find the element of ‘impairment.’

Section 3802(c)’s highest rate DUI offense has a 0.16% alcohol concentration threshold, which a .166 breath test satisfies.

Com. v. Lemke, M. · filed 2017-07-18(c)

The results revealed that Appellant had a BAC of .166, above the .16 threshold for DUI – Highest Rate.

Section 3802(a)(1) and (d)(3) permit a DUI charge based on general impairment without proof of the alcohol concentration specified in § 3802(a)(2).

HARVARD v. CESNALIS · filed 2019-12-04(a)(1), (a)(2), (d)(3)

More importantly, the DUI statute can be charged based on “general impairment,” under 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3802(a)(1) and (d)(3), rather than the legal limit set forth in § 3802(a)(2).

Section 3802(a)(1) does not require a blood alcohol test to prove that a driver was incapable of safe driving because of alcohol.

Com. v. Taylor, D. · filed 2023-08-29(a)(1)

A blood alcohol test is not necessary to prove general ... impairment under this statute.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) prohibits driving with any amount of marijuana in one’s blood, including medical marijuana.

Com. v. Johnson, R. · filed 2024-11-26(d)(1)(i)

We instead affirm the trial court’s determination that “the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] operated a motor vehicle” with marijuana in her blood, sufficient for a conviction under Section 3802(d)(1)(i), which merely requires proof of “any amount of a [S]chedule I controlled substance” in her blood.

Section 3802 permits convictions for driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or both when the evidence as a whole proves impairment, even without a chemical test.

Com. v. West, D. · filed 2024-10-07(a)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the verdict winner, we find that there was ample evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions for three counts of DUI under Sections 3802(a)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3).

Section 3802(d)(3) does not require any particular method of proving that alcohol and drugs impaired a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Harper, J. · filed 2024-12-17(d)(3)

Section 3802(d)(3) does not specify any particular manner by which the Commonwealth is required to prove that the defendant was under the influence of a drug, alcohol, or combination thereof.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug impaired driving without expert testimony when other evidence establishes impairment.

Com. v. Cahill, M. · filed 2024-09-10(d)(2)

Here, by contrast, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Cahill was driving under the influence of marijuana to a degree that impaired his ability to safely drive, without the need for expert testimony.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to prove drug impairment when other evidence establishes it.

Com. v. Caraballo, A. · filed 2024-10-09(d)(2)

Expert testimony is not necessary to establish impairment under subsection 3802(d)(2) where there exists other independent evidence of impairment.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug or combination of drugs impaired the person’s ability to drive safely; circumstantial evidence can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Chapman, S. · filed 2024-07-30(d)(2)

The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to establish that Appellant operated a vehicle under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs, which impaired his ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance or its metabolite in the blood, without requiring proof of impairment.

Com. v. Smith, M. · filed 2024-07-23(d)(1)(i), (iii)

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) rests not on an irrebuttable presumption of impaired driving but, instead, on a per se proscription against driving while there is present in one’s blood a Schedule I controlled substance or a metabolite thereof.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to prove drug impairment when other independent evidence establishes impairment.

Com. v. Caraballo, A. · filed 2024-07-15(d)(2)

Hence, the trial court correctly instructed this particular jury that, as a matter of law, expert opinion was not required for a conviction under 3802(d)(2); the instruction did not unduly mislead the jury.

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving while under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely; circumstantial evidence can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Lapierre, T. · filed 2024-05-24(d)(2)

Our review confirms that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient for the trial court to determine Appellant operated a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree which impaired his ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(3) requires proof that a drug contributed to the driver’s impairment; an observed wet cigarette and presence in a drug trafficking area did not establish that element.

Com. v. Duncan, H. · filed 2024-04-17(d)(3)

In the absence of any additional factors or explanation in the trial testimony as to Officer Tueros’s reasoning for her conclusion that the observed cigarette contained PCP, we are unable to find that there was sufficient evidence that Appellant’s impairment was caused in part by PCP or any drug. The evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, did not sustain the DUI conviction under subsection 3802(d)(3).

Section 3802(d)(3) prohibits driving while the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impairs the ability to drive safely, and circumstantial evidence can establish that the person drove while impaired.

Com. v. Foust, M. · filed 2024-03-14(d)(3)

Given the totality of the circumstances after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence in the case sub judice was sufficient to establish that Appellant had driven the vehicle while intoxicated to the point of being unable to safely drive.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) requires proof that a Schedule I controlled substance was present in the driver's blood, regardless of the amount or whether the driver was impaired.

Com. v. Sparrow, C. · filed 2024-03-11(d)(1)(i)

As noted above, the Commonwealth was not required to establish that Appellant was impaired; rather, the Commonwealth was only required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that marijuana was present in Appellant’s blood.

For a Schedule II or III controlled substance, the defendant must present some proof of a prescription before the Commonwealth must disprove medical authorization.

Com. v. Brown, R. · filed 2024-03-05(d)(1)(ii)

Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, he was required to come forward with some proof that he possessed a prescription ... for amphetamines before the Commonwealth was required to disprove his authorization to possess the drug.

Section 3802(d)(1) requires proof of a Schedule I controlled substance or its metabolite in the driver's blood, regardless of impairment; subsection (d)(2) requires proof that drugs impaired the driver's ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Reynolds, J., 4th · filed 2024-02-14(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)

In order to prove a conviction under Section 3802(d)(1)(i) or 3802(d)(1)(iii), the Commonwealth must establish the operation of a vehicle by a driver who has any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance or a metabolite of a Schedule I controlled substance in his or her blood, regardless of impairment. ... In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, Trooper Duncan, as a lay witness trained in the administration of field sobriety tests and the detection of the use of, and impairment by, controlled substances, offered sufficient evidence of Appellant’s impairment upon which the trial court could convict Appellant under Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to prove that a drug impaired a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Nestor, T. · filed 2024-04-10(d)(2)

Under the totality of these circumstances, expert testimony was not necessary to support Appellant’s section 3802(d)(2) conviction.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) permits a DUI conviction based on stipulated blood test results showing THC, because marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance.

Com. v. Esnard, L. · filed 2024-01-03(d)(1)(i)

However, as counsel acknowledges, our legislature classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. ... Further, the parties stipulated to the blood test results, which showed that Esnard had THC and a THC metabolite in his blood. This issue is also frivolous.

Section 3802(d)(3) permits a conviction when the evidence supports an inference that alcohol and a drug together impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Myers, D. · filed 2023-10-25(d)(3)

In light of the relevant standard of review, the trial court was permitted to draw the inference that Appellant was impaired due to the combination of alcohol and Tramadol.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that the defendant drove while a controlled substance impaired her ability to drive safely; driving behavior, field sobriety tests, and blood test results can establish impairment.

Com. v. Parnham, M. · filed 2023-09-22(d)(2)

To sustain a conviction under Section 3802(d)(2) of the DUI statute, the Commonwealth’s evidence must be sufficient to establish that: 1) the defendant drove 2) while under the influence of a controlled substance 3) to a degree that impaired her ability to drive safely. ... We conclude that this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to establish that Appellant was impaired such that she could not drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to prove marijuana impaired safe driving when the other evidence is sufficient.

Com. v. Turner, E. · filed 2023-08-16(d)(2)

Considering the specific drug at issue, the nature of the case, and the strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence, expert testimony was not required in this instance to establish impairment by marijuana use.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) does not require proof that the driver was impaired; subsection (d)(2) does.

Com. v. Whitmire, T. · filed 2023-07-28(d)(1)(i)

There is no requirement under Subsection 3802(d)(1)(i) that the Commonwealth establish the defendant was impaired while driving, id., unlike Subsection 3802(d)(2), which requires proof of impairment.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any amount of a Schedule I drug or its metabolite in the blood; subsection (d)(2) requires proof that drugs impaired the person’s ability to drive safely, without requiring a specific drug level.

Com. v. Walker-Banks, D. · filed 2023-06-08(d)(1), (d)(2)

Section 3802(d)(1), therefore, prohibits an individual from driving when there is any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in his blood. ... Section 3802(d)(2) “does not require proof of a specific amount of a drug in the driver’s system. It requires only proof that the driver was under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree that the ability to drive is impaired.”

Subsection (d)(2) allows impairment to be proved through the totality of the circumstances, including a rollover accident, marijuana odor, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and difficulty walking or standing.

Com. v. Crosby, J. · filed 2023-05-09(d)(2)

Upon review, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction under Subsection 3802(d)(2). Indeed, the testimony clearly indicated that Appellant drove the Ford Fusion and that, on a clear day, Appellant was involved in a single-vehicle rollover accident. In addition, the testimony demonstrated that, upon approaching Appellant, the officers smelled marijuana emanating from Appellant’s person and the Ford Fusion and that Appellant had glassy and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a difficult time walking or standing.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) prohibits driving with any amount of medical marijuana in the blood, even if the driver has a medical marijuana card; impairment is not required.

Com. v. Williams, E. · filed 2023-03-21(d)(1)(i)

Accordingly, pursuant to our ... holding in Stone, § 3802(d)(1)(i) specifically prohibits driving with any amount of medical or non-medical marijuana in the driver’s blood.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows a drug-impaired-driving conviction based on evidence of unsafe driving and observable impairment, without proof of a specific drug level or expert testimony.

Com. v. Housler, R. · filed 2023-01-06(d)(2)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we agree with the trial court’s determination that there ... was sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant was under the influence of a controlled substance which impaired his ability to safely drive his vehicle pursuant to Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(1) requires proof that the driver had an active Schedule I drug compound or its metabolite in their blood at the time of driving.

Com. v. Finneran, E. · filed 2022-11-10(d)(1)

To sustain a conviction under this Section 3802(d)(1) on this basis, the Commonwealth must provide that the defendant, at the time of driving, had in his blood either (1) the active compound of a Schedule I drug or (2) a metabolite of a Schedule I drug.

Section 3802(d)(3) requires proof that alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs impaired the defendant’s ability to drive safely; proof of unsafe driving is not required.

Com. v. Grim, T. · filed 2022-11-09(d)(3)

Unsafe driving is not an element of the crime. Rather, the prosecution must prove that Grim’s ability to safely drive was impaired.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) prohibits driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in one’s blood; the Medical Marijuana Act does not change that prohibition.

Com. v. Bond, T. · filed 2022-10-18(d)(1)(i)

We have nothing in the MMA that changes the prohibition on driving with any amount of a Schedule 1 drug in one’s system, and Bond has not identified anything in that Act that should have precluded his conviction.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a conviction when evidence shows that drug impairment affected a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Dunlap, S. · filed 2022-10-18(d)(2)

In this case, the court found Officer Palmer’s testimony credible regarding Dunlap’s impaired ability to drive safely. ... We agree that the sufficiency claim is frivolous.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows causation to be proved through observable signs of drug impairment without expert testimony on causation.

Com. v. Schram, T. · filed 2023-01-11(d)(2)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier-of-fact to find a causal connection between Appellant’s use of the aforementioned drugs and his inability to safely operate his motor vehicle, even in the absence of expert testimony as to the issue of causation.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) prohibits driving with any amount of marijuana in the blood, even when its medical use is lawful.

Com. v. Watts, J. · filed 2022-09-26(d)(1)(i)

Consequently, it is illegal to drive with any amount of marijuana, medical or otherwise, in one’s system.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) prohibits driving with any amount of marijuana in the blood, even if the driver holds a medical marijuana card.

Com. v. Watkins, E. · filed 2022-11-17(d)(1)(i)

Furthermore, even to the extent Appellant held a valid medical marijuana card, this would not operate as a defense to the crime of DUI—controlled substance.

Section 3802(d)(3) requires proof that the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impaired a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Edwards, D. · filed 2022-09-16(d)(3)

To sustain a conviction for DUI under Section 3802(d)(3), the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant was impaired, that he was incapable of safely driving, and that his impairment was caused by the combined influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs.

Section 3802(d)(3) treats a substance as a drug when it is consumed to affect bodily function; gasoline and bug and tar remover could qualify on the evidence presented.

Commonwealth v. Roser · filed 2006-12-13(d)(3)

The trial court advised the jury that “drugs” are “any substance, other than food, that is intended to affect the function of the human body.” ... Given this evidence, the jury could properly infer that Appellant’s consumption of the gasoline and bug and tar remover resulted in these symptoms or “changes in the bodily function” of Appellant. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its instruction to the jury.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires evidence that a drug impaired the driver's ability to drive safely; the presence of drug metabolites alone does not establish that impairment.

Commonwealth v. Etchison · filed 2007-01-24(d)(2)

Our review of the record supports Appellant's argument. Indeed, the Commonwealth presented no evidence to support a conclusion that Appellant was under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs at the time he was stopped, such that his ability to drive was impaired. Thus, we hold there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellant under Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the person's ability to drive safely, but does not require proof of a specific drug quantity.

Commonwealth v. Williamson · filed 2008-12-02(d)(2)

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require that any amount or specific quantity of the drug be proven in order to successfully prosecute under that section.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows drug impairment to be proved through direct and circumstantial evidence without a blood test.

Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo · filed 2010-04-16(d)(2)

These subsections contain no language requiring that impairment be established through blood tests.

Section 3802(d)(3) requires evidence that the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impaired safe driving; an officer’s opinion about drug impairment requires familiarity with the drugs involved.

Commonwealth v. Lillibridge · filed 2010-12-03(d)(3)

In the current matter, the Commonwealth has not established that Officer Disher has any familiarity with the particular drugs for which the defendant tested positive. Hence, the Commonwealth is not permitted to introduce any opinion testimony from Officer Disher regarding drug-induced intoxication. Without Officer Disher’s opinion testimony, the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and a combination of drugs to a degree that impaired his ability to safely operate his vehicle. Therefore, the Commonwealth has not established a prima facie case that the defendant violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(3).

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a drug-impaired driving conviction when evidence of driving, physical symptoms, drug use, and toxicology establishes that drugs impaired the person’s ability to drive safely.

Commonwealth v. LaBenne · filed 2011-05-26(d)(2)

However, in the case sub judice, there is ample evidence to show Appellant was under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs which impaired her ability to safely drive her vehicle.

Section 3802(c) prohibits driving when a person's blood alcohol concentration is at least 0.16% within two hours, and video evidence together with a qualifying blood test can support a conviction.

Commonwealth v. McKellick · filed 2011-06-20(c)

After viewing the video tape and listening to the testimony of officers and medical personnel, the trial court determined sufficient evidence had been presented to convict Appellant of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c). ... We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion making this finding, and therefore, this argument is without merit.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a finding of drug impaired driving based on an officer’s observations and field sobriety tests even when no drugs are found in the driver’s car or on his person.

Commonwealth v. Barker · filed 2013-07-10(d)(2)

The mere allegation that no drugs were found in the defendant’s car or on his person cannot substantiate a claim of not having been under the influence of such substances while driving. ... Because Barker limits his argument to such a credibility challenge and fails to identify any omission from the record that undermines the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the elements of the offense, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony in every drug-impaired driving prosecution; the need for it depends on the facts and evidence in each case.

Commonwealth v. Griffith · filed 2011-11-02(d)(2)

After analyzing the relevant statute in its entirety and in its proper context and considering the Superior Court’s analyses discussed above, we decline to read into subsection 3802(d)(2) a mandatory requirement for expert testimony to establish that the defendant’s inability to drive safely was caused by ingestion of a drug, even if it is a prescription drug, or drug combination. We do not dispute that in some cases, depending on the specific facts and circumstances, expert testimony may be helpful, or perhaps even necessary, to prove causation under subsection 3802(d)(2), but we decline to hold that the need for expert testimony is inherent in the statutory provision and thus mandatory in all cases.

Section 3802(d)(3) does not require expert testimony to prove that the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impaired a person’s ability to drive safely.

Commonwealth v. Jaeger · filed 2012-11-30(d)(3)

Similarly, we conclude here that for the Commonwealth to prove its case under Section 3802(d)(3), it is not necessary to produce expert testimony to establish that defendant’s ability to drive safely was impaired by the combined influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs.

Section 3802(d)(3) does not require expert testimony to prove impairment from the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

Commonwealth v. Graham · filed 2013-11-26(d)(3)

Therefore, as the Griffith Court held with respect to Section 3802(d)(2), Section 3802(d)(3) likewise “does not limit, constrain, or specify the type of evidence that the Commonwealth can proffer to prove its case” — and the Commonwealth, in this case, was not required to introduce expert testimony to meet its burden.

Section 3802(d)(1) does not require conversion of a non-whole-blood test result to a whole-blood value because any amount of a covered substance in the driver's blood suffices.

Commonwealth v. Hutchins · filed 2012-02-27(d)(1)

Therefore, for purposes of a conviction under Subsection 3802(d)(1), a conversion of non-whole blood to whole blood test results is unnecessary because concerns about an inflated test result are irrelevant; so long as any amount of the substance is within the individual’s blood, the evidence is sufficient to establish that element of the crime.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drugs impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely, but does not require proof of a specific drug level.

Commonwealth v. Tarrach · filed 2012-04-09(d)(2)

This section does not require proof of a specific amount of a drug in the driver’s system. It requires only proof that the driver was under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree that the ability to drive is impaired.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any amount of a covered controlled substance or metabolite, so blood serum results need not be converted to whole blood values for a conviction.

Com. v. Alterio, C. · filed 2014-08-29(d)(1)

For this reason, the distinction between whole blood and blood serum is immaterial for purposes of a conviction under subsection 3802(d)(1).

Section 3802(d) imposes no two-hour limit on testing for the presence of controlled substances after driving.

Commonwealth v. Wilson · filed 2014-09-18(d)

The plain language of subsection (d) clearly does not specify a time limit within which blood must be tested for the presence of a controlled substance.

Section 3802(d)(2) covers driving while under the influence of a drug to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely; officer observations and field sobriety tests can provide sufficient evidence of that impairment.

Com. v. Rennis, J. · filed 2014-10-09(d)(2)

We conclude that the testimony of Officer Markle and Trooper Means provided sufficient evidence to prove that Appellant was driving his vehicle while under the influence of a drug to a degree that impaired his ability to safely operate his vehicle. Accordingly, the Commonwealth proved Appellant committed DUI under section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d) does not impose a two-hour limit on blood testing for controlled substances.

Com. v. Rodriguez-Silva, J. · filed 2015-01-13(d)

The two-hour time limit, however, does not apply to convictions under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d).

Section 3802(d) prohibits driving with any amount of a scheduled controlled substance or its metabolite in the driver’s blood.

Commonwealth v. Jones · filed 2015-07-24(d)

On the other hand, the Vehicle Code precludes an individual from operating a motor vehicle with any amount of scheduled controlled substance, or a metabolite thereof, in the driver’s blood.

Subsection 3802(d)(2) requires proof that the influence of a drug caused the driver’s inability to drive safely; the court may consider the totality of the evidence, including observations of impairment when a blood test detects only an inactive metabolite.

Com. v. Beltz, A. · filed 2015-08-07(d)(2)

For purposes of determining whether the Commonwealth proved that Appellant violated subsection 3802(d)(2), the only question is whether Appellant’s inability to drive safely was the result of the influence of a drug. When the totality of the evidence presented at trial is viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, it sufficiently demonstrates that Appellant’s inability to drive safely was the result of the influence of cocaine.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows evidence of observed symptoms and field sobriety tests to establish that marijuana impaired a driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Gause, A. · filed 2016-05-05(d)(2)

We find that the totality of the circumstances presented sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant was under the influence of marijuana such that his ability to drive a vehicle was impaired.

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving or controlling a vehicle while under the influence of drugs to a degree that impairs the ability to do so safely.

Com. v. Murray, J. · filed 2016-07-06(d)(2)

We conclude the above-stated testimony was sufficient to establish probable cause that Murray was under the influence of a controlled substance, which impaired his ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows drug impairment to be proved through the combined circumstances without a blood test.

Com. v. Pagan, J. · filed 2016-07-12(d)(2)

We recognize Appellant did not submit to a blood test, but we conclude the combined circumstances demonstrate Appellant’s ingestion of prescription sleep medication impaired her ability to safely operate her vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance or its metabolite in the driver’s blood; circumstantial evidence can establish both driving and the substance’s presence at that time.

Com. v. Horvatinovic, A. · filed 2016-10-14(d)(1)

To establish guilt, the Commonwealth must prove that the Appellant was (1) driving, operating, or be in actual physical control of a vehicle, and (2) there was a Schedule I controlled substance in the Appellant’s blood or for the metabolite offense, a metabolite thereof. ... As Appellant did not consume any marijuana while at the DUI checkpoint, there was sufficient evidence to find ... that the Appellant had marijuana and metabolites of marijuana in his system while he was operating a motor vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to prove drug-impaired driving.

Com. v. Bedoya, J. · filed 2017-04-24(d)(2)

This provision does not require expert testimony.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drug use impaired the person’s ability to drive safely; evidence of recent marijuana use alone is insufficient.

Com. v. Sims, J. · filed 2017-08-23(d)(2)

Here, although the Commonwealth presented evidence of Appellant’s recent marijuana use, it failed to establish that Appellant was impaired at the time of driving or incapable of safely driving.

Section 3802(d)(1) requires blood draw evidence to make a prima facie showing that a driver had a detectable amount of a controlled substance in their blood.

Commonwealth v. Carper · filed 2017-10-13(d)(1)

In other words, the blood draw evidence was necessary to make a pñma facie showing that Appellee violated section 3802(d)(1).

Section 3802(d)(2) has no exception for prescribed medication that impairs a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Taylor, M. · filed 2017-10-17(d)(2)

Appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because the drugs were prescribed is of no moment: the statute does not provide an exception for prescribed medication.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) does not require proof that the driver was impaired.

Com. v. Tucker, C. · filed 2017-10-24(d)(1)(iii)

As the Etchison court established, and as Tucker concedes, impairment is not an element of section 3802(d)(1)(iii).

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving when a drug or combination of drugs impairs the ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Forbes, R. · filed 2017-11-15(d)(2)

While Forbes has well-documented medical issues and presented an expert witness who concluded that Forbes could safely drive because she should have built up a tolerance to these medications, the Commonwealth’s evidence overwhelmingly showed that Forbes was under the influence of a combination of drugs to a degree that impaired her ability to safely drive an automobile.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require possession of contraband to prove drug-impaired driving.

Com. v. Corbett, D. · filed 2017-12-29(d)(2)

Possession of contraband is not an element of DUI at Section ... 3802(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any quantity of specified illegal drugs or their metabolites in the bloodstream, and circumstantial evidence can establish their presence while driving.

Com. v. Angotti, J. · filed 2018-01-30(d)(1)

An individual is prohibited from driving, operating or controlling the movement of a motor vehicle with any quantity of certain illegal drugs (or metabolites thereof) in his bloodstream. ... When we construe these facts and the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing party, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Angotti was driving under the influence of a controlled substance while operating a motor vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) has no exception for prescribed medication.

Com. v. Taylor, M. · filed 2018-03-02(d)(2)

Appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because the drugs were prescribed is of no moment: the statute does not provide an exception for prescribed medication.

Section 3802(d)(2) has no exception for prescribed medication that impairs a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Camp, M. · filed 2018-03-21(d)(2)

Moreover, even if the ... drugs were prescribed to Camp, this fact would not entitle Camp to relief as the statute in question does not provide an exception for prescribed medication.

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving while under the influence of drugs to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely; medication use, failed sobriety tests, and expert testimony can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Troutman, K. · filed 2018-03-26(d)(2)

Following our review of the Notes of Testimony, we conclude that the Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence from which the trial court, sitting as fact-finder, could have concluded that Appellant was incapable of safely operating his vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drugs impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely; evidence of erratic driving is unnecessary when other evidence establishes that impairment.

Com. v. Ruth, I. · filed 2018-06-11(d)(2)

Based on the foregoing, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Davison, supra at 957, we conclude that it was more than sufficient to establish that Appellant was impaired to an extent that he was unable to safely drive.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drug use impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely or control the vehicle.

Com. v. Montgomery, M. · filed 2018-04-20(d)(2)

In order to obtain a DUI conviction pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2), the Commonwealth must prove that the accused was driving, “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.”

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug-impaired driving through independent evidence of impairment without expert testimony.

Com. v. Boyle, K. · filed 2018-04-27(d)(2)

Upon review, we conclude that this case is similar to Griffith, wherein the Commonwealth produced other independent evidence of impairment, thus ... expert testimony was not necessary to establish that Appellant was under the influence of a controlled substance.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol caused the inability to drive safely, while subsection (d)(2) requires proof that a drug or combination of drugs caused it.

Com. v. Tyner, V. · filed 2018-05-04(a)(1), (d)(2)

Rather, to sustain his respective subsection 3802(a)(1) and (d)(2) convictions, the record must contain evidence sufficient to establish that Appellant was incapable of safe driving because of alcohol impairment, and unable to drive safely due to impairment by a drug or combination of drugs.

Section 3802(d)(1) requires a controlled substance in the driver's blood but does not require proof of impaired driving.

Com. v. Laureano, R. · filed 2018-05-14(d)(1)

Second, we do not find that the defenses for these two subsections were substantially different because driving under the influence of a controlled substance pursuant to Section 3802(d)(1) does not require proof that the controlled substance impaired or affected Laureano’s ability to operate the vehicle, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not always require expert testimony to prove drug impairment; sufficiently telling evidence can establish impairment without it.

Com. v. Didyoung, J. · filed 2018-07-06(d)(2)

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has refused “to hold that the need for expert testimony is inherent in [75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2)] and thus mandatory in all cases.” ... We could not agree more with the trial judge’s thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis on this point. Thus, this Court adopts the trial judges’ decision on this issue and concludes that she did not abuse her discretion in admitting the officer’s lay opinion testimony into evidence.

For a Schedule II or III controlled substance, the driver must offer some evidence of a prescription before the Commonwealth must disprove medical authorization.

Com. v. Smith, L. · filed 2018-07-10(d)(1)(ii)

Accordingly, here, Smith was required to come forward with some proof that he possessed a prescription for oxycodone before the Commonwealth was required to disprove his authorization to possess the drug.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug impairment through circumstantial evidence without a blood test.

Com. v. Merson, M. · filed 2018-07-11(d)(2)

Although there was no eyewitness testimony or blood results to demonstrate that Merson ingested drugs, the Commonwealth introduced more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove she was under the influence of a controlled substance.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) is a strict liability offense concerning a metabolite in the blood and requires no proof of recklessness or gross negligence.

Commonwealth v. Karner · filed 2018-07-20(d)(1)(iii)

Further, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(iii), concerning metabolite in the blood, is a strict liability offense per se and does not have a mens rea of recklessness or gross negligence.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony when the other evidence sufficiently shows that drugs impaired the defendant’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Dougherty, E. · filed 2019-02-01(d)(2)

Our Supreme Court has held that § 3802(d)(2) does not contain “a mandatory requirement for expert testimony to establish that the defendant’s inability to drive safely was caused by ingestion of a drug[.]” Griffith, supra at 1238. Instead, the need for expert testimony is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, “taking into account not just ... the specific drug at issue . . . but also the nature and overall strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence[.]” Id. at 1239. ... Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony when observations of a driver’s conduct and recent marijuana use sufficiently link the drug use to impaired driving.

Com. v. Mervin, C. · filed 2019-05-07(d)(2)

We agree with the reasoning of DiPanfilo that there are some circumstances where lay observations, especially those observations by a trained police officer4, provide sufficient information to conclude the erratic driving was linked to the marijuana usage.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drug use impaired a person’s ability to drive, operate, or control a vehicle safely.

Com. v. Pinhak, R. · filed 2019-03-22(d)(2)

Subsection 3802(d)(2) requires proof that the defendant is under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs his or her ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of his or her vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof of drug impairment for a DUI conviction.

Commonwealth v. Taylor · filed 2019-05-06(d)(2)

If the jury accepted the officer’s opinion on Taylor’s drug use, it could have found that she committed the offense of DUI, of which ... impairment is a necessary element.

Section 3802(d)(3) requires proof that the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impaired the defendant’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Andrews, M. · filed 2019-08-23(d)(3)

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial ... does not satisfy the causation requirement of subsection 3802(d)(3).

Subsection (d)(2) requires drug influence that impairs a person’s ability to drive safely; evidence of recent marijuana use and impairment can support a conviction.

Com. v. Noel, A. · filed 2019-09-25(d)(2)

(See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 26, 2019, at 3-4) (finding: ... regarding DUI—controlled substance charge, Appellant admitted to officers during stop he had smoked marijuana earlier that evening, and marijuana was present on driver-side window track of vehicle; additionally, evidence indicated Appellant was impaired at time of stop; Appellant was under influence of marijuana to degree that impaired his ability to drive safely; evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of DUI—controlled substance; ... verdict did not shock conscience and was not against weight of evidence). The record supports the trial court’s rationale. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance or its metabolite in the blood, regardless of impairment.

Com. v. Grimes, H. · filed 2020-01-31(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii)

Appellant’s sufficiency challenge is meritless as the Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant drove a vehicle with measured amounts of marijuana and its metabolite in his blood in violation of both Sections 3802(d)(i) and (iii).

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require proof of a specific amount of a drug in the driver’s system; it requires proof that the drug impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Matthews, R. · filed 2020-02-24(d)(2)

This section does not require proof of a specific amount of a drug in the individual’s system.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely, but does not require proof that a controlled substance was in the driver’s system.

Com. v. Harrington, J. · filed 2020-03-16(d)(2)

The plain language of the DUI statute does not require the Commonwealth to prove Harrington had controlled substances in her system for purposes of that subsection. ... To support Harrington’s conviction, the Commonwealth had to prove that, at the time she was driving, Harrington was under the influence of a drug or a combination of drugs that impaired her ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) prohibits driving with any amount of a covered controlled substance’s metabolite in the blood, whether the metabolite is active or inactive and regardless of impairment.

Com. v. Bell, S. · filed 2020-03-10(d)(1)(iii)

This subsection of the statute does not distinguish between active and inactive metabolites.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) prohibits driving with any amount of a covered controlled substance metabolite in the blood.

Com. v. Wellington, D. · filed 2020-04-13(d)(1)(iii)

Under the plain language of subsection (d) any amount of metabolites are sufficient to render one DUI in this Commonwealth.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a finding of drug impairment based on a combination of medications even if the level of one medication is normal.

Com. v. Mallicone, A. · filed 2020-03-18(d)(2)

However, even if this testimony had been admitted, and the jury believed that the levels of venlafaxine were normal for Mallicone, the jury would still be permitted to find that Mallicone was intoxicated as a result of the combination of medications she admitted to taking that day.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) does not prohibit driving with a metabolite produced from a medically prescribed Schedule II or III controlled substance.

Com. v. Glenn, W. · filed 2020-05-29(d)(1)(iii)

We cannot conclude that the legislature intended to permit an individual to lawfully operate a motor vehicle while a medically prescribed “parent” Schedule II or III controlled substance is in their bloodstream (i.e., under subsection (d)(1)(ii)), but simultaneously prohibit this same individual from lawfully operating a vehicle while a metabolite of the same substance is in their bloodstream (i.e., under subsection (d)(1)(iii)).

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require proof of a specific amount of a drug in the driver’s system or expert testimony in every case.

Com. v. Lantzy, C. · filed 2020-08-26(d)(2)

This section does not require the Commonwealth to prove there was a specific amount of a drug in the driver’s system, or necessitate expert testimony in every case.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a finding of impaired driving when a driver struggles to park and has difficulty standing and walking immediately afterward.

Com. v. Wilson, D. · filed 2020-10-13(d)(2)

In particular, Funk’s testimony that she witnessed Appellant fail numerous times to successfully park the truck, and had difficulty standing and walking immediately thereafter, support the court’s determination that Appellant operated the truck under the influence of a controlled substance.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to explain blood test results or their bearing on a driver’s impairment.

Com. v. Matthews, W. · filed 2020-12-01(d)(2)

Thus, the Commonwealth was not required to present an expert to interpret or explain the lab results, or their bearing upon Matthews’ level of impairment.

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving while under the influence of a drug to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Galette, C. · filed 2020-12-17(d)(2)

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we find there was sufficient evidence to enable the trial court, as fact-finder, to find that Appellant was under the influence of a controlled substance (PCP) to a degree that impaired his ability to safely operate his vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) applies when a driver has marijuana in their bloodstream after obtaining it illegally, even if the driver has a medical marijuana identification card.

Com. v. Murray, S. · filed 2020-12-31(d)(1)(i)

Furthermore, having an authorized medical marijuana identification card did not give Appellant carte blanche to procure marijuana illegally from a random person on the street.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits circumstantial evidence to prove that a person was impaired by drugs while driving, operating, or in physical control of a vehicle.

Com. v. Booth, S. · filed 2021-07-01(d)(2)

Considered in its totality, the evidence was sufficient evidence to prove that Booth was impaired by a controlled substance when he drove, operated, or was in physical control of the vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) prohibits driving with a Schedule I substance’s metabolite in the blood regardless of whether the driver has a prescription.

Com. v. Kaleta, R. · filed 2021-08-03(d)(1)(iii)

Therefore, the jury could convict Appellant of having the metabolite of marijuana in his blood regardless of whether he had a prescription.

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require evidence of erratic driving to sustain a conviction.

Com. v. Donmoyer, S. · filed 2021-12-07(d)(2)

We observe that evidence of erratic driving is not necessary to sustain a conviction under § 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a drug-impaired driving conviction without an officer observing unsafe driving when the evidence shows impairment of the person’s ability to drive, operate, or control the vehicle safely.

Com. v. Goldman, T. · filed 2022-01-04(d)(2)

Thus, regardless of the fact the state troopers did not observe Appellant driving in an unsafe ... manner prior to the stop, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was sufficient to support the verdict. Indeed, pursuant to Section 3802(d)(2), an individual may be convicted of DUI if he is under the influence of drugs to a degree which impairs, not only his ability to safely drive the vehicle, but also to “operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) requires proof that a person drove or controlled a vehicle with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in the blood; proof of impairment is unnecessary.

Com. v. May, R. · filed 2022-02-15(d)(1)(i)

The Commonwealth was not required to establish that Appellant was impaired in order to convict him pursuant to § 3802(d)(1)(i).

Section 3802(d)(2) requires drug impairment of the ability to drive safely; to establish the corpus delicti, the Commonwealth must show that someone operated a vehicle while under the influence of a drug.

Com. v. Bennett, W. · filed 2022-02-17(d)(2)

The statute at issue here – 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2) – provides that an individual is guilty of DUI when the “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.” 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). As applied to this case, then, in order to establish the corpus delicti, the Commonwealth needed to show that someone operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the defendant’s ability to drive safely; evidence of consumption alone is insufficient.

Com. v. Hensley, C. · filed 2022-03-09(d)(2)

The language of Section 3802(d)(2) therefore requires that the consumption of a controlled substance must be sufficient to cause impairment; conversely, some consumption of a controlled substance may not be sufficient to cause impairment.

Section 3802(d)(1) applies to medical marijuana, so the Commonwealth need not prove that marijuana found in a driver’s bloodstream came from a non-medical source.

Com. v. Stone, R. · filed 2022-04-12(d)(1)

As stated above, neither the DUI statute nor CSA currently distinguish between medical and non-medical marijuana. Accordingly, the instant jury instruction requiring the Commonwealth to prove that the marijuana in Appellee’s blood resulted from non-medical marijuana is a misstatement of law.

Section 3802(d)(1)-(2) requires evidence connecting drug presence or impairment to the time a person drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle.

Com. v. Caldwell, N. · filed 2022-04-26(d)(1)-(2)

Even viewing the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth, this Court is still required to speculate as to the timeline of events and, thus, we are constrained to conclude that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence regarding Caldwell’s alleged impairment at 12:13 a.m.

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with marijuana or its metabolite in the blood even when the driver is authorized to use medical marijuana.

Com. v. Bixler, B. · filed 2022-04-26(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii)

Consequently, “the relevant DUI statute specifically prohibits driving with the presence of any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in the driver’s blood, regardless of the driver’s status as an authorized user.” Id. Here, Appellant’s argument is premised on his assertion that medical marijuana is not a Schedule I controlled substance. Based on this Court’s decision in Stone, Appellant is not entitled to relief.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) and (iii) prohibit driving with medical marijuana or its metabolites in the blood, even when the marijuana was lawfully used.

Com. v. Dabney, F., Jr. · filed 2022-05-05(d)(1)(i), (iii)

Having found that Section 3802(d)(1)(i) applies to all marijuana, even medical marijuana, we likewise conclude that Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) applies to metabolites of all marijuana, including medical marijuana.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) and (iii) prohibit driving with any amount of marijuana, including medical marijuana, or its metabolite in the blood; the Medical Marijuana Act does not exempt patients from those provisions.

Com. v. Haney, N. · filed 2022-06-28(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii)

The DUI statutes, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(d)(1)(i) & (iii), are not ambiguous. It is illegal to drive with a Schedule I controlled substance, or a metabolite thereof, in your blood. ... Marijuana, including medical marijuana, remains a Schedule I controlled substance.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a person drove while under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree that impaired the ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Spence, O. · filed 2023-02-15(d)(2)

Therefore, to convict a defendant under this section, the Commonwealth must establish three elements: 1) that the defendant drove; 2) while under the influence of a controlled substance; and 3) to a degree that impairs the defendant’s ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(1)(ii) prohibits driving with any amount of an unprescribed Schedule II or III controlled substance in the blood; evidence that the driver had cocaine and methamphetamines in her system without a valid prescription was sufficient here.

Com. v. Messner, M. · filed 2024-12-30(d)(1)(ii)

The evidence reflects that Appellant drove a vehicle with the presence of two Schedule II controlled substances in her system without a valid prescription and got into a car accident with a vehicle in the opposite lane of travel, causing serious bodily injury.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) requires proof that the driver had any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in their blood.

Com. v. Wall, A. · filed 2025-03-03(d)(1)(i)

As charged here, DUI requires proof that Wall was driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in his blood.

Section 3802(d)(1)(iii) applies to metabolites of medical marijuana; lawful medical marijuana use does not confer immunity from DUI arrest or prosecution.

Com. v. Burkett, W. · filed 2025-01-28(d)(1)(iii)

For the foregoing reasons, we summarily reject Appellant’s first claim that he was immune from arrest and prosecution for DUI controlled substance – metabolite under Section 3802(d)(1)(iii).

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to prove drug impairment when other evidence establishes it.

Com. v. Younce, C. · filed 2025-05-06(d)(2)

Finally, we note that in order to obtain a conviction under Section 3802(d)(2), the Commonwealth is not required to introduce expert testimony.

Section 3802(d)(1)(i) prohibits driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance in the blood, without requiring proof of impairment.

Com. v. Rodriguez, C. · filed 2025-06-09(d)(1)(i)

Rodriquez’s argument that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was impaired at the time of the incident is therefore irrelevant. Rodriquez consented to a blood draw and his sample tested positive for TCH. ... Such evidence was sufficient to support Rodriquez’s conviction under Section 3802(d)(1)(i).

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony when other evidence proves drug impairment and inability to drive safely beyond a reasonable doubt.

Com. v. Greene, S. · filed 2025-06-18(d)(2)

Given the strength of this other evidence, the Commonwealth did not need expert testimony; the other evidence of drug impairment was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Greene was unable to safely operate his vehicle. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to convict Greene of DUI under section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(2) allows drug-impaired driving to be proved through observed behavior, field sobriety tests, a trained officer’s opinion, and refusal of chemical testing.

Com. v. Speakman, M. · filed 2025-07-18(d)(2)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, the record supports the trial court’s determination that Appellant was impaired by drugs. The officers observed several signs of Appellant’s impairment, including his general demeanor and performance on field sobriety tests designed to detect drug-related impairment. Officer Schiltz opined, based on his training and observations, that Appellant’s use of drugs had impaired his driving ability. ... Thus, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction under subsection 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require proof identifying the specific controlled substance when other evidence establishes drug impairment that makes driving unsafe.

Com. v. Marberger, R. · filed 2025-08-25(d)(2)

Therefore, under these facts, there was no compelling need for the Commonwealth to adduce ... the specific controlled substance that influenced Marberger and caused him to be incapable of safe driving.