183 A.3d 444
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Labor Day weekend crash: at ~9:15 p.m. a truck struck and fatally injured a cyclist; police were not dispatched until ~10:01 p.m.; officers arrived ~10:04 p.m.
- Officers observed signs of intoxication and arrested Trahey for DUI; specialized Accident Investigation District (AID) later took over the scene.
- AID determined blood testing should occur within two hours of the crash to preserve evidentiary value; Trahey was transported for testing at ~10:49 p.m.
- Trahey was read implied-consent warnings, verbally consented and signed the form (but failed to check a consent box); blood was drawn at ~11:15 p.m., about 2 hours 5 minutes after the crash.
- Trahey moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw; the suppression court found his consent invalid under Birchfield and suppressed the blood evidence, declining to rule on exigent circumstances because officers relied on consent.
- Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court held the suppression court should have applied an objective, totality-of-the-circumstances exigency analysis and concluded exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless blood draw was lawful | Trahey: consent was invalid under Birchfield; suppression required | Commonwealth: exigent circumstances (alcohol dissipation, delays, manpower, warrant delay) justified warrantless draw | Court: objective exigent-circumstances analysis supports admission; reversal of suppression |
| Whether consent (signed form) validated the draw | Trahey: warnings rendered any consent involuntary and invalid | Commonwealth: officers reasonably relied on apparent consent at time of testing | Court: did not decide consent validity (assumed arguendo invalid) because exigency independently justified search |
| Whether officer subjective intent (relying on consent) prevents exigency review | Trahey: suppression court relied on officers’ subjective belief about consent to avoid exigency analysis | Commonwealth: objective circumstances govern, not officer intent | Court: Fourth Amendment inquiry is objective; suppression court erred by refusing exigency analysis based on officers’ subjective belief |
| Whether time and practical obstacles made obtaining a warrant impracticable | Trahey: delay in dispatch, investigation, and claimed available warrant process did not excuse warrant requirement | Commonwealth: delayed dispatch, two-hour evidence window, limited AID staffing, and estimated 70–180+ minute warrant process created exigency | Court: these factual circumstances—delayed dispatch, lost portion of two-hour window, limited manpower, and foreseeable long warrant timeline—support exigent-circumstances exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw upheld where delay to get warrant threatened loss of blood-alcohol evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (natural dissipation of alcohol not per se exigency; exigency is fact-specific; courts must evaluate totality)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is an objective inquiry not defeated by officer’s subjective intent)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (reiterates objective test for Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (an action can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on objective circumstances)