Com. v. Enyeart, R.
Com. v. Enyeart, R. No. 90 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- On Jan. 17, 2015, Trooper Meko observed Enyeart’s vehicle swerving, straddling the center turn lane, and once crossing the fog line; he activated his dashcam and followed into a Sheetz parking lot.
- Trooper activated emergency lights, approached, and testified he smelled alcohol and marijuana; Enyeart was ordered out and failed field sobriety tests.
- At the hospital, Trooper read O’Connell warnings and the DL-26 implied-consent form; Enyeart consented to a blood draw.
- Blood results: presence of marijuana and a BAC of .082; toxicologist testified to a 6–7% margin of error.
- Appellant was charged with DUI (and a general-impairment count later dismissed); he was convicted of DUI, sentenced to 90 days–1 year and a $1,500 fine, and appealed.
- Appellant appealed denial of his suppression motion (challenging the traffic stop) and argued Birchfield required suppression of warrantless blood results; the trial court found reasonable suspicion and the appellate court found waiver on the Birchfield claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Commonwealth: Trooper observed swerving, lane straddling, fog-line crossing that gave particularized, objective basis to stop for suspected DUI | Enyeart: Video does not demonstrate sufficient lane deviation; stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Court: Trooper’s testimony and video supported finding of reasonable suspicion to stop for suspected DUI; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether Birchfield requires suppression of warrantless blood results | Enyeart: Post-Birchfield, consent to warrantless blood draw may be involuntary absent probable cause; suppression required | Commonwealth: No timely challenge below; voluntariness not preserved | Court: Claim waived for failure to preserve in trial court; Birchfield-based suppression not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrant requirement analysis for blood tests in DUI context)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (application of Birchfield in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing when reasonable suspicion suffices for a stop vs. when probable cause is required)
- Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (O’Connell warnings for chemical testing)
- Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott, 684 A.2d 539 (Pa. 1996) (O’Connell warnings and DL‑26 context)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (retroactivity and preservation rule for new legal rules on direct appeal)