Com. v. Christopher, T.
Com. v. Christopher, T. No. 2465 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- At ~12:45 a.m. on June 22, 2014, Trooper Tonitis observed Todd Christopher’s vehicle cross the double yellow line twice and saw what he believed was a lit cigarette thrown from the passenger side; he initiated a traffic stop.
- Trooper noted glassy, bloodshot eyes, smelled alcohol from the vehicle and Christopher, and after exiting the car Christopher admitted drinking, was agitated, refused field sobriety tests but agreed to a portable breath test (PBT) which was positive.
- Christopher was arrested; a later blood test showed a .12% BAC.
- He moved to suppress the stop and arrest for lack of probable cause; the suppression motion was denied. After a non-jury trial he was convicted of DUI (general impairment and highest rate) and careless driving; sentenced to house arrest and probation.
- Christopher later invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota (decided after his conviction) and sought post‑sentence relief arguing his consent to blood testing was coerced; the trial court denied relief and Christopher appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Christopher's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the traffic stop (throwing cigarette / § 3709) | Trooper lacked certainty that cigarette came from his car; slight lane deviation was to avoid gravel | Trooper credibly observed what appeared to be a lit cigarette thrown from passenger side; that observation gave probable cause to stop | Stop was supported by probable cause; suppression denied |
| Probable cause to arrest for DUI | Bloodshot/glassy eyes could be fatigue; agitation explained by belief he was stopped for leaving a bar | Totality of circumstances (admission to drinking, odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, refusal of FSTs, positive PBT, agitation) provided probable cause to arrest | Arrest was supported by probable cause; suppression denied |
| Birchfield-based challenge to blood test consent / coercion | Implied-consent warnings and criminal penalties coerced consent to blood draw such that the blood evidence should be suppressed or conviction vacated | Christopher did not preserve a voluntariness challenge at trial, stipulated to the lab report, and never raised the coercion issue below | Claim waived for failure to preserve; Birchfield did not entitle defendant to relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding states may not criminalize refusal of a blood test; consent coerced under threat of criminal penalties invalid)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applied Birchfield to vacate sentence where implied‑consent warnings may have coerced blood consent)
- Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable cause to stop exists when officer observes Motor Vehicle Code violation)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 867 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2005) (probable cause requires practical, everyday factual considerations, not certainty)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (probable cause to arrest for DUI may rest on odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, and bloodshot/glassy eyes)