Metro

A motorist who was upset that he was denied admission into Huntingdon County’s Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition program has lost his appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, according to an opinion issued Friday.

Morgan Ewell Falzone, 32, of Smithfield, Va., was pulled over by two state police troopers on Aug. 11, 2024, after they witnessed his vehicle hitting the fog line of the highway three times.

According to the Superior Court opinion, when the officers approached the driver, they noticed his eyes were “bloodshot” and “glassy,” and his speech was “raspy.”

They smelled alcohol on his breath and they viewed a bottle containing a brown liquid — and a case of Miller Lite beer — inside the vehicle.

Falzone admitted he had consumed alcohol before driving.

The officers asked the driver to submit to a preliminary breath test, which he refused.

He was then taken to a hospital, where he also refused a blood draw.

Despite his refusal to take the tests to determine his blood alcohol content, Falzone was charged with driving under the influence, careless driving, disregarding the traffic lane and failure to keep right.

What happened next formed the nub of Falzone’s appeal.

He sought admission to Huntingdon’s Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition program.

ARD is an alternative program under which a suspect can avoid prison time and eventually, if successfully completed, have the charges dropped and his arrest record expunged.

Admission to the program is controlled by the district attorney.

Huntingdon County has a policy under which individuals arrested for DUI are not eligible for admission if their BAC level is 0.25% or above.

Since there was no BAC reading available in Falzone’s case, the DA determined that by refusing both types of testing (breath and blood draw), he was ineligible for admission to the ARD program.

Falzone countered by seeking a court order “to compel” admission to the ARD program.

Judge George N. Zanic rejected Falzone’s request, and on Jan. 6, 2025, Falzone was convicted of the charges during a non-jury trial.

He was then sentenced to serve six-months’ probation and pay a fine of $300.

Through Carlisle attorney Craig E. Kauzlarich, Falzone filed an appeal with the state Superior Court, contending he received “heightened punishment” for exercising his constitutional right to refuse a warrantless blood test.

He also complained the Huntingdon County rule of rejecting those with a BAC reading of over 0.25% represented an unconstitutional “enhanced penalty.”

He asked the Superior Court to vacate his sentence and return his case to Huntingdon County, to a pretrial stage, so he could be sentenced to ARD.

The Superior Court panel that included Judges Jill Beck, Brandon P. Neuman and John T. Bender, disagreed.

“No Relief is Due,” the panel stated in its opinion

The panel countered that the criminal penalties for DUI were not “heightened” by Falzone being rejected for ARD.

The statutory exposure (for DUI) did not change, the government argued.

The panel agreed.

Falzone’s entire argument, the panel concluded, centered on his presumption he would have successfully completed the ARD program, and thus due to his exclusion from the ARD program he has been subjected to a greater fine, a more strenuous term or probation — and a DUI conviction on his record.

His refusal to be admitted into the ARD program was not a “punishment” that would entitle him to relief, the Superior Court judge ruled.

It also upheld the policy of denying ARD to those who have a BAC of more than 0.25%.

The panel quoted from the brief filed by the government which stated, “If an individual has a BAC above .25 percent … they are incredibly dangerous while operating a motor vehicle on the highway/roadway.

“The Commonwealth’s policy serves to protect the public and does not constitute an abuse of its discretion in determining who to nominate for the ARD program,” the opinion ended.