Major Change in Pennsylvania DUI Law: Supreme Court Limits Use of ARD as Prior Offense

AnnMarie Everett
Jun 3
4 min read

Recently, in the landmark decision Commonwealth v. Shifflett (2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dramatically changed how courts handle sentencing for repeat DUI offenses. The decision directly affects people who previously completed Pennsylvania’s Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program for DUI offenses.

Historical Background: ARD and DUI Law in Pennsylvania

Historically, Pennsylvania’s DUI law has been harsh on repeat offenders. Under previous Pennsylvania law, participation in the ARD program—although not technically a conviction—was treated as a "prior offense." ARD typically involves probation, classes, fines, and sometimes license suspensions, after which charges are dismissed without conviction. Despite not being a conviction, ARD was used to justify imposing harsher punishments if someone got a subsequent DUI conviction.

For instance:

If someone completed ARD for a DUI in 2015 and was arrested for another DUI in 2020, they would previously have faced the same enhanced penalties as someone who had been convicted of DUI before—even though they never had a conviction.

This harsh treatment resulted in significantly increased mandatory minimum penalties, including longer jail time, higher fines, and extended license suspensions.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Shifflett?

In Shifflett, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that using ARD acceptance (which is explicitly not a conviction) as a prior DUI offense violates constitutional due process protections. The Court reasoned:

ARD is designed to give first-time offenders a chance to rehabilitate without permanent criminal penalties.
Completing ARD means the individual was never found guilty, thus should not be penalized later as if they had been convicted.
To enhance criminal penalties based on ARD alone unfairly converts a non-conviction into a conviction.

In short, the Court held that prior ARD participation can no longer be counted as a prior DUI conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes.

Practical Impact for Individuals with a Prior ARD

This decision dramatically changes the landscape for individuals who completed ARD for a previous DUI offense:

Before Shifflett:

Your ARD participation counted as your "first DUI offense."
A second DUI—even many years later—was considered a second offense with mandatory minimum penalties including significant jail time, longer license suspensions, higher fines, and more restrictive sentencing conditions.

After Shifflett:

Your previous ARD completion can no longer be used to enhance sentencing on a subsequent DUI conviction.
If you have completed ARD for DUI and now receive another DUI charge, this new conviction must be treated as your first offense—unless you have another actual DUI conviction on your record.

Concrete Example:

Imagine someone named Alex:

Alex completed ARD for DUI in 2018.
In 2025, Alex is arrested for DUI again and convicted.
Before Shifflett, Alex would face second-offense penalties, likely including mandatory jail time, extensive fines, and significantly longer license suspensions.
After Shifflett, Alex’s new DUI conviction is treated as a first offense, drastically reducing penalties—no mandatory jail, reduced fines, and shorter license suspension.

This effectively restores ARD’s intended purpose of allowing one-time offenders a second chance.

Important Clarifications and Limitations

It is crucial to understand what Shifflett does not do:

It does not erase previous ARD records entirely. ARD participation will still appear on background checks and can affect ARD eligibility in future cases.
Prosecutors and judges may still consider ARD in deciding eligibility for ARD a second time or during plea negotiations.
Shifflett applies only to criminal penalties for DUI—it does not affect other collateral consequences like professional licensing, insurance premiums, or civil liability.

PennDOT License Suspensions Are Separate

The Supreme Court’s decision also does not alter how the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) handles license suspensions related to DUI cases. PennDOT license suspensions occur administratively—separate and distinct from criminal penalties:

Criminal penalties (handled by the courts) include jail time, fines, and probation.
Administrative license suspensions (handled by PennDOT) are mandatory penalties imposed independently from criminal charges.

Thus, even after Shifflett:

A DUI arrest or acceptance into ARD still triggers a separate PennDOT license suspension based solely on the arrest, blood alcohol level, or ARD admission.
The length and terms of administrative license suspensions remain unchanged by this court decision.

For example, a driver who enters ARD with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above certain thresholds will still receive a mandatory license suspension—even though criminal sentencing enhancements based on prior ARD participation are prohibited.

What Does the Future Hold for DUI Sentencing?

Post-Shifflett, prosecutors and lawmakers may adjust their strategies:

Prosecutors might reconsider ARD eligibility criteria.
Lawmakers might revise statutes to explicitly address repeat DUI offenders in new ways.
Defense attorneys will now be better positioned to negotiate plea agreements for clients with prior ARD cases, since enhanced penalties are off the table.

This ruling underscores the importance of obtaining knowledgeable legal counsel familiar with the evolving landscape of DUI laws.

Conclusion: A Major Step Toward Fairness

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Shifflett represents a meaningful step toward fairness, ensuring that ARD fulfills its rehabilitative purpose without permanently branding participants as repeat offenders. However, the law surrounding DUI offenses remains complex, especially given PennDOT’s administrative suspension processes and possible future legislative changes.

If you or someone you know faces DUI charges, particularly after previously participating in ARD, obtaining legal advice from an experienced attorney is essential to fully understand your rights and how this significant decision impacts your specific situation.

Disclaimer:This blog post is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice specific to your situation, please contact Ludwig, Everett & Tomb, PLLC directly.