PA Supreme Court Limits Removal from ARD Program
Posted in ARD on November 1, 2025
In a major decision for Pennsylvania DUI and criminal defense law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Jenkins that a defendant cannot be removed from the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program based solely on the “spirit or purpose” of the program. The Court held that ARD revocation is only lawful when a participant violates a specific written condition or makes a false statement on the ARD application.
Background: DUI Arrests and ARD Application
Jenkins was arrested for DUI in Adams County in May 2021 and later applied for ARD. Before that case was resolved, he was arrested again for DUI, but no charges were filed until months later. When Jenkins completed his ARD application, he truthfully stated that he had no pending criminal charges because the second arrest had not yet resulted in a formal charge. The court approved his admission into ARD for the first DUI. After charges were later filed for the second DUI, the district attorney moved to revoke Jenkins’s ARD participation, claiming he had misled the court by failing to disclose the earlier arrest. It must be noted that the the ARD form did NOT ask about uncharged arrests.
The Adams County judge granted the DA’s request and removed Jenkins from ARD. That decision was appealed, and the PA Superior Court affirmed or agreed with the ARD removal.
Supreme Court Reverses: ARD Revocation Must Be Based on Actual Conditions
The PA Supreme Court unanimously reversed and held that Jenkins should not have been removed from ARD. both lower courts. The Court emphasized that Jenkins did not violate any ARD condition or law while participating in the program, and he accurately answered the questions on the ARD application. Therefore, revoking ARD to “preserve the spirit of the program” was not legally permissible.
The Court made clear that prosecutors must ask the right questions on ARD forms if they want to consider arrests that have not yet led to charges. It is not a defendant’s duty to guess what information might be relevant.
Legal Takeaways: Clear Rules, No Implied Conditions
ARD revocation requires a specific violation. Courts cannot revoke ARD based on implied or unwritten conditions.
Honesty protects defendants. Truthfully answering the questions on an ARD application is sufficient.
Prosecutors carry the burden. They must design ARD applications to capture the information they want to evaluate.
Pre-admission conduct isn’t grounds for revocation. Conduct that occurs before entry into ARD cannot support removal unless it breaches a written term.
Impact on Pennsylvania DUI and ARD Cases
The Jenkins decision provides stronger protections for first-time offenders seeking ARD, particularly in DUI cases. It ensures that:
Defendants can rely on the plain language of ARD applications.
Trial courts can no longer remove participants for vague or discretionary reasons.
Counties may update their ARD forms to ask about prior arrests to avoid future disputes.
This case also echoes the Court’s prior rulings that anticipatory revocation of probation and revocation based on implied duties are unlawful under Pennsylvania law.
What This Means for ARD Applicants
If you are applying for ARD in Pennsylvania, the Jenkins decision reinforces that:
You must answer truthfully every question on your ARD application.
You cannot be removed from ARD for failing to disclose information that was never requested.
If your ARD participation is revoked unfairly, you may have grounds to appeal.
Attorney Insight: Why Jenkins Matters
This ruling is a major win for fairness and transparency in Pennsylvania’s ARD system. Defense attorneys can now cite Commonwealth v. Jenkins to challenge improper ARD revocations that rely on “spirit-of-the-program” arguments or unwritten local practices.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, are likely to respond by updating ARD applications to include questions about prior arrests—making it even more important for applicants to review these forms carefully with legal counsel.