How Pennsylvania’s “DUI Following Diversion” Law Affects Penalties

In late 2025, Pennsylvania enacted a new offense called “DUI following diversion,” under which a person who commits a DUI after previously completing Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) or a similar diversion can be punished as equivalent to a second offender. Prosecutors across Pennsylvania have already begun filing this charge alongside the underlying DUI count, and courts are treating it as a legislative fix to restore enhanced penalties in post-ARD cases.

The new law was in response to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court holding earlier in 2025. The court ruled in Commonwealth v. Shifflett that completing an ARD program could not be considered as a prior conviction for sentencing purposes because ARD does not involve a finding of guilt, and moreover is designed as a rehabilitative, non‑punitive alternative to prosecution. The court said that equating ARD completion to a conviction would expand the statute beyond its text and undermine the distinction between diversionary programs and criminal adjudications. 

The new law, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3802(h), does not convert ARD into a prior conviction. Rather, it creates a new penalty structure that mirrors second-offense consequences. The penalties for DUI following diversion depend on the driver’s BAC tier, but they generally track the mandatory minimums for a second DUI: increased fines, longer jail ranges, a 12-month license suspension and mandatory ignition-interlock installation. PennDOT may also treat the offense as a prior DUI for administrative purposes, which can affect license restoration requirements and insurance consequences.

Even with the new statute, defense strategies are available:

• Defense counsel can challenge whether the earlier program truly qualifies as “ARD or similar diversion,” including for out-of-state cases. 
• The prosecution may have failed to prove the prior ARD was completed, properly recorded and within the applicable lookback period for any administrative consequences. 
• Traditional DUI defenses may be raised, such as challenging the legality of the stop, the accuracy of chemical testing, the sufficiency of refusal warnings or the reliability of breath-testing equipment. 

For defendants, the most important step is early case evaluation. Obtaining prior ARD records, reviewing the charging documents and assessing whether the DUI following diversion statute was properly applied can make a big difference in outcomes. A skilled DUI defense attorney can push for tier reductions, alternative sentencing options or other resolutions to avoid the harshest consequences of the new law.

If you’ve been charged with a Pennsylvania DUI offense in Somerset, Bedford, Cambria or Indiana counties, Matthew R. Zatko, Attorney at Law, can provide a prompt and effective defense. Call 814-483-7075 or contact me online for a free consultation.