A lawyer representing a Luzerne County attorney who declined chemical testing for allegedly driving under the influence argued before the state Supreme Court that motorists suspected of DUI should be given a choice of being tested for blood alcohol content.
Attorney Albert Flora, who argued for John D. Nardone in Nardone v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before the justices in Harrisburg, contended that his client should not have been found to have refused testing after Nardone declined to undergo a chemical test but offered to alternatively take breath-alcohol and urinalysis tests. Flora argued that, under Section 1547(i) of the Motor Vehicle Code, motorists suspected of DUI should be allowed to request an alternative method of testing, including chemical, breath or urinalysis tests.
