PA Court Upholds ARD Denial After DUI Blood Test Refusal

Posted in General on June 12, 2026

Pennsylvania’s Superior Court recently addressed whether a DUI defendant can be denied entry into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program after refusing a blood test in a Huntingdon County DUI case.  In Commonwealth v. Falzone, the court held that denying ARD under these circumstances does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights.

Background of the Case

Falzone was stopped by the state police after Falzone’s vehicle touched the fog line multiple times. During the traffic stop, trooper noted several signs of alcohol impairment, including: bloodshot and glassy eyes; slurred or raspy speech; odor of alcohol; open alcohol containers inside the vehicle; and inability to successfully complete field sobriety testing.  Falzone also admitted to having consumed alcohol before driving. Falzone refused a preliminary breath test at the scene and subsequently refused to submit to a blood draw after being arrested and being provided with the chemical test refusal warnings.

Falzone was charged with DUI under the general impairment section at 75 Pa.C.S. 3802(a)(1).  That law is used by the prosecutors in refusal cases because it does not require a precise blood alcohol level. The law requires the prosecutor to present evidence that the driver was intoxicated due to alcohol and that the alcohol rendered the driver incapable of safe driving.  For more info about blood test refusals in DUI cases, click here.

Why Was ARD Denied?

Falzone was a first-time DUI offender and applied for admission into the Huntingdon County ARD program. ARD allows a participant to avoid a conviction and have the charges dismissed and then expunged upon completion of the program requirements. A person is NOT entitled to ARD, meaning being eligible for ARD does not guarantee that the person is approved to participate in the program. The district attorney makes the decision as to which cases are recommended to a judge for ARD approval. If the district attorney does not recommend a case, an appeal of the  ARD denial decision can be filed with a judge, but the judge will generally defer to the prosecutor’s discretion and will rarely overturn the ARD denial decision.

In this case, the Huntingdon County district attorney has a policy denying ARD if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .25% or higher. The district attorney claimed that he did not outright refuse ARD consideration in refusal situations, but a refusal prevented the prosecutor from knowing in the BAC was above a .25%, so ARD was not recommended. Therefore, the blood test refusal indirectly resulted in the denial of ARD based upon the district attorney’s policies. Falzone filed a motion to compel and tried to convince the trial judge to force the district attorney to recommend ARD.  The judge denied the request, and Falzone’s DUI defense attorney appealed the denial to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Defendant’s Constitutional Argument

The defendant relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016), which held that motorists cannot face enhanced criminal penalties solely for refusing a warrantless blood test. He argued that denial of ARD effectively increased his punishment because he lost the opportunity to:

Therefore, he claimed the denial of ARD amounted to an unconstitutional penalty for exercising his Fourth Amendment rights.

Superior Court Rejects the Argument

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that denial of ARD does not constitute an enhanced criminal penalty prohibited by Birchfield. The court reasoned that the punishment faced by Falzone never changed because of his refusal. From the time he was charged with DUI, he faced the same potential penalties under Pennsylvania law for a first offense of DUI under 3802(a)(1): up to six months of probation; $300 fine; and required treatment or educational programs. Basically, the court stated that ARD is a privilege that may be extended or offered in some cases, but a driver is not entitled to it, and denial of ARD is not a penalty. The sentence for a conviction is a penalty, and the sentence that Falzone faced did not change based upon his refusal. The court explained that withholding a discretionary pretrial benefit is not the same as imposing additional punishment.

ARD Remains a Discretionary Program

The Superior Court reiterated that admission into ARD is not a right. Under Commonwealth v. Lutz, 495 A.2d 928 (Pa. 1985), district attorneys have broad discretion in deciding who is eligible for ARD, provided the criteria are related to:

Courts generally will not interfere with these decisions unless the Commonwealth relies upon factors wholly unrelated to these legitimate purposes, such as race or religion.

What This Means for Pennsylvania DUI Cases

This decision reinforces several important principles:

Drivers charged with DUI should understand that decisions made during a traffic stop—including whether to submit to chemical testing—can have significant consequences beyond the immediate criminal charges.

Final Thoughts

The Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Falzone confirms that while defendants retain constitutional protections against enhanced punishment for refusing warrantless blood draws, those protections do not guarantee access to discretionary diversionary programs like ARD.

Because DUI cases involve complex constitutional and procedural issues, individuals facing charges should consult with an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to evaluate all available options and defenses.