Com. v. Boone, Z.
2081 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Trooper Snarski responded ~30–40 minutes after a single-vehicle crash where the car struck a tree on a right-hand curve; there were no skid marks or adverse road conditions.
- Inside the vehicle he found 107 nitrous oxide canisters, one canister on the passenger seat, and a whipped‑cream dispenser charged with gas and showing a red substance on the nozzle.
- The driver, Zachary Boone, was transported to the hospital; his girlfriend told the trooper she and Boone had been "huffing" nitrous oxide recently and the day before the crash.
- At the hospital Boone consented to a blood draw; results were negative for nitrous oxide but positive for marijuana metabolites.
- Trial court suppressed the blood-test results and granted habeas relief, finding no probable cause because the trooper observed no direct signs of intoxication; the Commonwealth appealed.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding that under the totality of the circumstances the trooper had probable cause to believe Boone operated the vehicle while under the influence of a noxious substance (nitrous oxide).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Boone's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for DUI—controlled substance (nitrous oxide) | Totality of circumstances (crash circumstances, large number of canisters, pressurized dispenser, girlfriend's admission, physical evidence) made it reasonable to infer Boone had been huffing and impaired | Trooper observed no signs of impairment; inference of intoxication is speculative without direct signs | Reversed suppression: probable cause existed to arrest for DUI–noxious substance under 75 Pa.C.S. §3802(d)(4) |
| Waiver of Commonwealth's appellate issues under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) | 1925(b) statement was sufficient to preserve challenge to suppression of blood evidence | 1925(b) statement too vague; waiver of claims, including habeas challenge | Court declined to find waiver; issues preserved as related subsidiary claims |
| Applicability of Kohl precedent (requirement of observed signs of intoxication) | Kohl is distinguishable where physical and testimonial evidence supports inference of inhalant use | Kohl precludes probable cause absent observed signs | Kohl distinguished: presence of abundant nitrous oxide evidence and crash circumstances permit probable‑cause inference |
| Preservation of habeas corpus challenge on appeal | Appealing suppression of evidence preserves appeal of habeas relief that relied solely on suppression | Argued Commonwealth waived habeas challenge | Court held habeas issue preserved because it rested on suppression ruling; remanded to reinstate complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. March, 154 A.3d 803 (Pa. Super. 2017) (probable‑cause blood draw upheld where post‑crash scene produced drug paraphernalia and witness observations)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (articulates probable‑cause/totality‑of‑circumstances standard)
- Commonwealth v. Kohl, 576 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Super. 1990) (officers lacked probable cause where no indicia of alcohol or drug use were observed)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (probable cause exists where criminality is a reasonable inference under totality of circumstances)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause need not be correctness, only reasonable belief)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (adopts totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)