The Pennsylvania Association for Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys (PADDDA) has a very active amicus committee as well as a legislative affairs committees.
Here is some of their publications.
Amicus Committee briefs
Commonwealth v Wagner This was a PADDDA amicus brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. This was a PennDOT license appeal regarding an undiagnosed, untreated diabetic ketoacidosis in a DUI “refusal” context.
Commonwealth v Dyarman This was a PADDDA amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This case involves whether or not certificates of calibration and accuracy for BrAC testing are testimonial statements that require the state to provide for confrontation with the particular witness who made the documents)
Commonwealth v. Yohe This was a PADDDA amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This case involves whether or not the government must provide for the particular witness who did the physical acts on the testing or will a surrogate witness–an expert–will satisfy constitutional Confrontation issues)
Commonwealth v Schildt This was a PADDDA amicus brief to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. This case involves whether or not the government can prosecute people for DUI-Highest Rate (above a 0.16%) when the government’s choice of its calibration check points ends at 0.15%. Thus any reported BrAC outside of 0.05% to 0.15% is not scientifically supported, and the DUI-Highest Rate charge must be dismissed pre-trial.
Commonwealth v. Weaver (Appendix) This was a PADDDA amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The certified question asks “Whether horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test results, which have been deemed to be scientific evidence under Pennsylvania precedent, are [in]admissible at a suppression hearing for lack of probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence absent any admission of foundation evidence presented to show that the HGN test is generally accepted in the scientific community?”
Publications from the Legislative Affairs Committee
PADDDA comment to proposed Rule 574 (Notice and Demand) This was a letter to the SCOPA criminal rules committee seeking them to re-evaluate the decision to make Pennsylvania a “notice and demand” state.