The landscape of driving under the influence law in Pennsylvania is changing, and for many individuals, this evolution is a long-awaited step toward fairness. In a significant ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Shifflett that a diversionary resolution known as Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition cannot be used as a prior conviction to increase penalties for future driving under the influence offenses. While this may seem like a positive development for driving under the influence reform advocates, the reaction from several District Attorney offices across the Commonwealth has raised serious concerns. Some counties are now choosing to deny Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition entirely for certain driving under the influence cases, particularly those classified as Tier Three violations.
Understanding Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in Pennsylvania
Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition is a program available to first-time, non-violent offenders. It allows individuals to avoid a formal criminal conviction by completing a period of supervision, community service, and in some cases, treatment or educational courses. Once the program is completed successfully, the case is dismissed, and the record may be eligible for expungement. Before the Shifflett ruling, participation in Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition could be used against a person if they were charged with another driving under the influence offense within ten years. This meant that even without a formal conviction, their previous participation could lead to harsher penalties such as mandatory jail time and longer license suspensions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shifflett has changed that. The court ruled that Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition is not equivalent to a conviction and therefore cannot be used to increase the severity of future offenses. This aligns with the principle that diversionary programs should be rehabilitative, not punitive.
The Troubling Response from Some Prosecutors
Rather than embracing the rehabilitative intent of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, some prosecutors are now refusing to offer it at all for certain offenses. This is especially true in Tier Three driving under the influence cases, which include drivers who refuse chemical testing, test at the highest blood alcohol levels, or are charged with being under the influence of controlled substances such as cannabis. This development is particularly troubling for Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana patients. These individuals are legally permitted to use cannabis under state law, yet they can still be charged with a Tier Three driving under the influence offense simply for having THC metabolites in their system—even when there is no evidence of impairment or active Delta-9 THC in their blood. The denial of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in these cases is not based on science or a legitimate public safety concern. It is based on outdated attitudes and inconsistent policy. This approach treats medical cannabis patients as if they are guilty of misconduct simply for treating their health conditions legally and responsibly.
Why This Policy is Unjust and Arbitrary
Medical marijuana patients are being unfairly swept into the harshest category of driving under the influence charges even when there is no actual evidence that they were impaired behind the wheel. The refusal to offer Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in these cases is an arbitrary and capricious use of prosecutorial discretion. It creates a patchwork of justice across Pennsylvania, where the availability of fair treatment depends entirely on the county in which the person was arrested. Two individuals with identical facts in their cases could face dramatically different outcomes based solely on location. This inconsistency undermines public confidence in the justice system and punishes individuals for actions that are neither dangerous nor unlawful under state medical cannabis law. No person should face the most severe penalties without clear evidence of wrongdoing, especially when they are complying with the state’s own health and wellness programs.
What You Should Do If You Are Facing a Tier Three DUI
If you are a first-time offender facing a Tier Three driving under the influence charge, especially if you are a medical marijuana patient, you need experienced legal representation right away. These cases involve complex intersections of criminal law, administrative license penalties, and evolving cannabis policy. Attorney Patrick Nightingale has more than twenty years of experience handling criminal cases from both sides of the courtroom. As a former prosecutor and now a passionate defender of individual rights, he brings a deep understanding of how to challenge harsh penalties and advocate for clients who are being treated unfairly by the justice system. Patrick is a recognized advocate for cannabis reform in Pennsylvania and understands how science and the law should align when it comes to impairment and substance use. If you are facing a Tier Three driving under the influence charge, he will work to ensure that your rights are protected, your case is fully investigated, and that the legal system treats you fairly.
Contact PKN Law Today
You do not have to navigate this alone. The system can be overwhelming, but you have options—and you have the right to a defense that takes your health, your future, and your rights seriously. If you or a loved one are being denied Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in a driving under the influence case, especially as a medical cannabis patient, reach out today. Call (412) 454-5582 or visit patricknightingale.com to schedule a consultation.