Com. v. Cernick, J., 272 A.3d 476

PSP stopped Appellant’s unlicensed daughter; Corporal Hoover called Appellant to pick her up; Appellant arrived 20–30 minutes later driving his truck.
Officer observed signs of impairment in Appellant (slow speech, evasive answers, glossy/bloodshot eyes, green-tipped tongue) and administered field sobriety tests; Appellant was arrested for DUI.
At Corry Hospital Appellant was read and signed DL-26B, which warned that refusal of a blood test could result in suspension and a restoration fee “of up to $2,000.”
A warrantless blood draw detected active and secondary metabolites of marijuana; Appellant moved to suppress the blood results, arguing the DL-26B warning coerced his consent.
Trial court denied suppression (applying the Mendoza‑Martinez factors) finding the $2,000 restoration fee civil rather than punitive; Superior Court affirmed, holding the fee is not a de facto criminal punishment and consent was valid.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether consent to the warrantless blood draw was involuntary because DL‑26B warned of a $2,000 restoration fee	The DL‑26B warning presented a de facto criminal punishment (the $2,000 fee), coercing consent in violation of Birchfield/Evans	The restoration fee is a civil penalty/fee; the warning was not an inaccurate threat of criminal punishment and did not render consent involuntary	Court held consent valid; DL‑26B fee is civil, not punitive, so no Birchfield/Evans relief; suppression denied
Whether the $2,000 restoration fee is punitive under Mendoza‑Martinez	The $2,000 assessment is punitive in purpose/effect and thus functionally criminal	Most Mendoza‑Martinez factors weigh against finding the fee punitive; it is regulatory/civil	Court applied Mendoza‑Martinez and concluded fee is not so punitive as to be criminal; characterization as civil stands

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (prohibits criminalizing refusal to submit to blood test; warrant required for blood draws incident to arrest)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (warning that refusal leads to harsher criminal penalties can render consent involuntary under Birchfield)
Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (setting multi‑factor test to determine whether a civil sanction is punitive)
Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression denials)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 177 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discussing Evans and application of Birchfield principles)