They arrested the person that wasn't even driving

What is the name of your state? pa

my friends and i were having a few beers after the football game. my girlfriend and her husband got into an argument and he took off on foot. after waiting for a while for him to return, my girlfriend ( who wasn't drinking ) went to find him in their truck which he uses on a normal basis. she went through the parking lot of the local bar to see if he was there. the bar was closed, so she headed back to my house. in the mean time, he returned to my house. when she was almost to my house, she turned the corner after being stopped at a stop sign. the roads were wet, and being that the tires on that truck were fairly bald the truck fishtailed and as she was trying to bring it back, she cut to hard and ended up hitting a parked car and then hit a tree. now remember, she was not drinking. when the cops came and we told them what had happened, they said that they had 4 witnesses that they had seen her husband just moments before driving through the bar parking lot. well, it wasn't him. it was her. after questioning us, they ended up arresting him!!! even though he wasn't driving. these witnesses obviously assummed it was him because it was the truck that he normally drove. Now he had been drinking, so they arrested him and charged him with dui. And to make matters worse, they never read him his miranda rights and they never told him that they were taking him to have a blood test and what the consequences were if he didn't do so.
Can someone please tell me how this is all possible, and where do we go from here.

[Bravo8]

1. He needs an attorney.

2. Witness statements can be used to create PC for the arrest. If they have (multiple) witnesses stating they saw him driving - not that they saw his truck - then those witnesses can be used to place him in the vehicle prior to the accident. That, along with any corroborating evidence (after all.....we only get half the story here) is valid PC.

3. Unless he was interrogated post-custody, there is no legal requirement to Mirandize him. This is a common question....a result of inaccurate TV.

4. There is no legal requirement to provide him with his O'Connel warnings, which are the warnings and described consequences of refusing the BAC test. Under Pennsylvania's Implied Consent Law, anyone who is in actual physical control of a vehicle implies his consent to a chemical test if arrested for DUI. He only needs to be advised of the consequences if he refuses such testing.