Com. v. Garlitz, B.
8 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- On July 4, 2015, police responded to an ATV crash; Garlitz was injured, admitted drinking, and was treated by EMS at the scene and hospital.
- Trooper Hollibaugh read and Garlitz signed the DL-26 implied-consent form and then a non‑warrant blood draw was performed, yielding a BAC of .180%.
- The DL-26 form warned that refusal could result in license suspension and enhanced criminal penalties if later convicted of certain DUI offenses.
- Garlitz moved to suppress the blood result as involuntary consent; the trial court denied the motion, and a jury convicted him of DUI and summary offenses.
- After sentencing, Garlitz appealed, arguing Birchfield requires suppression where consent was induced by a threat of criminal penalties; the trial court acknowledged an error under Birchfield and requested remand.
- The Superior Court reversed the judgment of sentence and remanded for the trial court to determine whether consent was validly obtained in light of Birchfield.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield applies to invalidate consent obtained after warning of enhanced criminal penalties | Commonwealth contends implied‑consent warnings of license suspension and enhanced penalties are valid under PA law | Garlitz contends Birchfield forbids obtaining consent by threatening criminal penalties, so his consent was involuntary | Court held Birchfield limits use of criminal‑penalty threats to obtain consent; remanded to determine voluntariness under Birchfield |
| Whether Garlitz’s consent to the warrantless blood draw was voluntary | Commonwealth argues consent was voluntary because DL‑26 was read and signed and statutory penalties exist | Garlitz argues consent was coerced by DL‑26 statement promising enhanced penalties for refusal | Court concluded consent was at least partly based on DL‑26’s criminal‑penalty language and required reassessment under Birchfield |
| Whether Pennsylvania’s implied‑consent scheme can constitutionally impose enhanced criminal penalties for refusal | Commonwealth relies on state statute authorizing enhanced penalties and prior PA precedent upholding statutory scheme | Garlitz relies on Birchfield’s rule that motorists cannot be deemed to have consented under threat of criminal sanctions | Court recognized Birchfield’s distinction: license‑suspension warnings are permissible but criminal‑penalty threats cannot form the basis for valid consent |
| Whether the DUI verdict was against the weight of the evidence based on alleged inconsistencies in trooper’s testimony | Commonwealth argues record evidence (physical scene, observations, BAC) supports verdict and minor inconsistencies do not undermine credibility | Garlitz argues trooper’s inconsistent directions undermine his credibility and the verdict | Court rejected weight claim: inconsistencies were not so severe as to shock the conscience; credibility determinations for the jury/trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrant required for forced blood draws; criminal penalties cannot be used to coerce consent to blood testing)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses PA implied‑consent consequences and prior treatment under state law)
- Commonwealth v. Ennels, 167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017) (consent to blood draw invalid where implied‑consent form threatened enhanced criminal penalties)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explains totality‑of‑circumstances test and objective standard for consent validity)