Partner With Your Legal Ally 717.268.4287
Trust a Firm with 65+ Years of Experience Let us put our experience to work for you.

DUI Attorneys in Harrisburg

Protecting Your Rights, Freedom & Driving Privileges

If you have been charged with a drinking and driving offense in Pennsylvania, it is critical that you remain silent and that you fully cooperate with the police, as anything you say or do may be used by the prosecution and the police to establish that you had a blood alcohol content (BAC) above the 0.08 limit at the time of your DUI stop. A conviction on these charges could result in life-altering consequences, including significant fines, possible jail time, and the loss of your driver's license.

Contact Shaffer & Engle today for skilled legal support and zealous advocacy if you or a family member has been charged with a DUI. You have rights; we will work diligently to protect them by providing you with the highest-quality representation possible.

Decades of Experience with DUI Defense

The DUI defense lawyers at our firm have over 65 years of combined legal experience implementing effective case strategies on behalf of clients charged with drunk driving.

We can represent you at every stage of the legal process, including:

  • All court appearances with you, or on your behalf
  • Full investigation of the traffic stop and charge
  • Motions to dismiss or reduce charges
  • Related traffic violations defense
  • License reinstatement process
  • License revocation hearings

Heightened Repercussions for DUI Conviction

The consequences of a DUI conviction are serious. In February 2004, the Pennsylvania legislature tightened the guidelines for DUI charges. The new law has increased the jail time for a first-time DUI with a BAC of 0.16 percent from two days to three days in jail. Additionally, subsequent convictions within 10 years now result in 90 days in jail, as opposed to 30 days under the old law. The BAC necessary to receive a charge of DUI or ARD are 0.02 percent for a juvenile offender, 0.08 percent for an adult, and 0.04 percent for a commercial freight hauler or bus operator.

Our attorneys have an in-depth understanding of the laws that relate to DUI stops, testing, and arrests. We will effectively represent you in your drinking and driving case. Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, Esq. is an accomplished federal and state criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended clients against serious DUI charges.

Actual Physical Control

The concept of "actual physical control" involves control of the movements of either the machinery of a motor vehicle or of the management of the vehicle itself, without a requirement that the entire vehicle be in motion.

To determine whether a person was in “actual physical control of a vehicle,” these should be considered:

  • Where the vehicle was located
  • Whether or not the motor was running
  • Any additional evidence proving the defendant drove the vehicle

A determination of actual physical control of a vehicle, as required to sustain a DUI conviction, is based upon the totality of the circumstances. The fact that the car is not moving is not dispositive, however, of whether the appellant is "in actual physical control." In a DUI prosecution, the Commonwealth can use wholly circumstantial evidence to establish that a defendant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

Showing that an intoxicated defendant started a parked car, without more evidence, is not enough to prove actual physical control necessary to sustain a DUI conviction; the Commonwealth must show some additional facts to illustrate that the defendant was a danger to public safety. In order to establish that the defendant was in "actual physical control" of the automobile, the Commonwealth must show something more than the defendant behind the wheel, with the motor running; there must be evidence to support an inference indicating that the defendant drove the vehicle while he or she was intoxicated.

For example, a defendant may be convicted of the offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol when he or she proceeded downhill on a motorcycle without starting the engine, weaving the cycle from side to side, because with the exception of starting the engine, the defendant's actions were no different, and no less dangerous, than if the engine had been started.

At Shaffer & Engle, we have successfully challenged many cases on the basis that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" of the vehicle. Call our DUI lawyers in Harrisburg at (717) 268-4287 to discuss your case in more detail.

The Location of the Offense Is Crucial

Since driving under the influence of alcohol is defined in the Vehicle Code as a "serious traffic offense," the offense must be committed on a highway or a trafficway. An essential element of the DUI statute is that the vehicle be operated on a highway or trafficway while the operator is under the influence of alcohol. The key term used to specify the type of travel for a highway or trafficway is if the path is and can be used or open to the public.

There is authority that a university parking lot that is restricted for the use of properly registered student vehicles and designed for the parking of these vehicles is not open to the public for the purposes of vehicular traffic, thus, is not a trafficway within the meaning of the Vehicle Code, so that a charge of driving while under the influence which took place in such a parking lot must be dismissed.

What Constitutes Being "Guilty" of DUI?

The accused must be intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquor to be guilty of driving while intoxicated

One is intoxicated when he or she does not have the normal use of his or her physical and mental faculties:

  • By reason of the use of intoxicating liquor
  • When he or she is affected by liquor to the extent that it is less safe for him or her to operate the automobile than it would be if he or she were not so affected
  • When, by reason of such use, he or she is incapable of driving with the care essential to the safety of occupants of the vehicle and others

Under some specific statutes, however, proof that the defendant was "under the influence" or "intoxicated" is not required for a conviction of driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle when one has a specified blood alcohol content. However, the test whether a motorist is driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor is not his or her fitness or unfitness to drive, but whether he or she has imbibed to an extent that his or her mental or physical condition is deleteriously affected.

Being Under the Influence of Narcotic Drugs

Within the meaning of a statute making it an offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of narcotic drugs, a person is under the influence of such drugs when he or she has taken a sufficient amount of them to cause him or her to lose the normal control of her or his mental or bodily faculties, or both, to the extent that there is an appreciable impairment of both or either of those faculties. Stated another way, if a motorist is under the influence of a drug to the extent that it impairs the motorist's ability, in any manner, to operate his or her vehicle, the motorist is in a "drugged condition" and guilty of driving while intoxicated.

The legal use of a prescription drug is no defense and generally, there is no requirement to show intent in a prosecution for driving while under the influence of drugs. In addition, a prescription drug user may be convicted where he or she also consumed intoxicating liquor, the drugs making him or her more susceptible to the influence of the liquor.

Note that it is impossible to properly define and classify every element of the DUI statute in Pennsylvania as it relates to an individual's case. That is why it is essential to have an attorney with the knowledge and experience to defend your case review the criminal complaint, incident report, and any charging documents supplied by the police in support of the case against you.

At Shaffer & Engle, we take the time to properly investigate your case, review the charges, interpret the Commonwealth's case against you, and provide a solid foundation and recommendation to alleviate the pain and anxiety that invade your life when you've been charged with a DUI. Don't let the situation handle you — you handle the situation!

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD)

ARD is a pre-trial diversionary program that allows first-time offenders (and in certain extreme cases, second-time offenders) to complete a probationary period, pay fees and court costs, complete community service, undergo counseling, and complete the requirements of the Alcohol Safety School. At the conclusion of these, the individual's record is expunged (wiped clean).

The benefits of such a program are that the offender does not go to jail and there is a reduced license suspension period for Class C drivers (cars). In general, a first-time DUI offender would be looking at the possibility of up to 72 hours in jail and the loss of driving privileges for a year. If the ARD program is acceptable, the offender would not go to jail and receive only 30 to 60 days of suspension.

ARD requirements vary from county to county. Most counties, such as Dauphin, Cumberland, York, and Schuylkill require a period of probation (usually 12 months), completion of community service, and the payment of fees and court assessments (approximately $1,000).

Contact a Skilled DUI Lawyer in Harrisburg

Timing is critical in drunk driving cases. By neglecting to hire a knowledgeable DUI attorney in Harrisburg, you may be compromising the outcome of your case. If you or a family member has been charged with DUI or a related alcohol offense, contact the legal team at Shaffer & Engle immediately. Our Harrisburg DUI attorneys offer free consultations and can help you with all your legal needs. We also serve clients throughout Dauphin County.

What Our
Clients Have to Say

  • He has a great personality and makes you feel welcome and comfortable.

    “Mr. Engle took our case and worked diligently from the time we hired his firm until our case was resolved. In addition he kept us well informed throughout the process with emails, letters, and phone conversations. I have worked with a number of law firms in the past 10 plus years and Attorney Engle is one of the best. He does not make you feel as if you are a burden to him when you ask questions. He has a great personality and makes you feel welcome and comfortable. He makes no promises due to the fact he is not a fortune teller but he will do everything possible to have a positive outcome for your case. I recommend Attorney Engle and his Law Firm and hold nothing but positive praise for him and his team.”

    Paul W.

  • He treated me with respect and always made me feel like my case was his only priority.

    “Because I live out of state, I needed representation that I could trust to best represent me and my interests. Jeff Engle provided regular, thorough counsel throughout the legal process. He treated me with respect and always made me feel like my case was his only priority.”


  • He treats you with respect, has a great personality, keeps you informed, makes you feel comfortable, and takes time to answer any questions.

    “Hired the Law Office to handle the new Adam Walsh Act law going into effect December 20, 2012. State of PA and State Police was requiring that I register under the new law. Not only required to register but also changing my Tier level from Tier 1 to Tier Pending. Originally was required to register as a Tier 1 for 10 years but under the new law they were requiring to register for life. Attorney Engle took the case and fought from the day he was hired until the case was resolved. This is the only Law Firm I have dealt with that work diligently and kept us well informed throughout the case. Our case Won on two levels: 1. I am no longer required to register under the new Adam Walsh Act. 2. Successfully removed my name from the Sex Offender Registry. I am no longer listed on State or Federal Megan Law web site. I have worked with several Law firms over the past 10 years and Attorney Engle is the best Attorney. He treats you with respect, has a great personality, keeps you informed, makes you feel comfortable, and takes time to answer any questions. He fought for my rights where not too many attorneys out there will. AND he WON our case against the State Attorney General and the Pennsylvania State Police. I will recommend this Law Firm to anyone that need legal representation no matter what the case might be. Big or small this is the law firm you want to hire. I cannot nor can anyone predict the same outcome but they will fight for your best interest.”

    Former client

  • Jeff provided us with clear advice and immediate responses to my multitude of questions and concerns.

    “Jeff provided us with clear advice and immediate responses to my multitude of questions and concerns. We are grateful our case is finally settled and would certainly recommend him.”

    Former Client

  • We love you, Elisabeth! You are a "for real" woman!

    “We love you, Elisabeth! You are a "for real" woman!”

    Tara G.