Com. v. Frank, S.
1716 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 13, 2017Background
- Appellee Shannon Frank was detained after a DUI incident and consented to a blood draw after warning about penalties for refusing.
- The DL-26 warnings given to Frank reportedly stated enhanced penalties for refusing the blood draw, which were later challenged as partially incorrect post Birchfield.
- Frank was charged with DUI-controlled substances and related offenses; suppression of the blood draw evidence was sought.
- The trial court granted suppression after considering Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution alongside Fourth Amendment arguments.
- The Commonwealth appealed, contending the suppression ruling was error under both U.S. Fourth Amendment doctrine and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- The Superior Court affirmed suppression, holding that good-faith reliance on appellate precedent does not apply under Article I, Section 8, and that consent was not voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield v. North Dakota changes the suppression analysis under Article I, Section 8. | Frank preserved state claim; Birchfield undermines DL-26 warnings. | Birchfield does not render evidence per se inadmissible; good-faith reliance still defeats suppression. | Article I, Section 8 claim preserved; good-faith exception not available. |
| Whether the blood draw evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception. | PA good-faith exception does not exist; Birchfield invalidates warnings. | Police relied on appellate precedent; evidence should be admitted under the good-faith doctrine. | Good-faith exception does not apply under Article I, Section 8. |
| Whether the defendant's consent to the blood draw was voluntary given partially inaccurate DL-26 warnings. | Warnings were coercive; custodial setting weighed against consent. | Consent was voluntary despite some inaccuracies; totality of circumstances favors voluntariness. | Trial court's finding that consent was not voluntary is supported; suppress evidence sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (limits on compelled blood draws; distinguishes breath vs blood testing)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception for searches based on binding appellate precedent later overturned)
- Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith exception for statute later found unconstitutional)
- Frederick, 124 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Pennsylvania good-faith limitation under Article I, Section 8)
- Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (exclusionary rule and suppression standards in Pennsylvania)
- Gillespie, 821 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 2003) (voluntariness factors for consent to search)
- Stoops, 723 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. 1998) (preservation of suppression issues when raised in post-hearing briefs)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (reasonableness and Fourth Amendment search standards)