Com. v. Greenfield, J., Com. v. Greenfield, J. No. 230 MDA 2017

Police stopped Jeremy Greenfield after observing unsafe driving; officer smelled burnt marijuana, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and Greenfield performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Marijuana and paraphernalia were found in the car.
Greenfield was arrested and transported to a hospital; after being read DL-26 (O’Connell) warnings he signed the form and consented to a blood draw. Blood tests showed THC.
Greenfield was charged with DUI—controlled substance and related offenses and moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the stop lacked probable cause and the blood draw violated Birchfield v. North Dakota.
Trial court granted the suppression motion; the Commonwealth appealed.
The Commonwealth argued Birchfield should not preclude warrantless blood draws in drug-related DUI cases (because breath tests detect only alcohol) and that the DL-26 warnings rendered consent voluntary.
The Superior Court affirmed suppression, relying on precedent holding that Birchfield requires either a warrant, exigent circumstances, or voluntary consent free from coercive criminal-penalty implications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Birchfield permits warrantless blood tests in drug-only DUI prosecutions	Warrantless blood tests should be allowed because breath tests detect alcohol only, so blood is the only viable test for drugs	Birchfield requires warrant or valid, voluntary consent for blood draws; criminal penalties cannot coerce consent	Rejected Commonwealth; Birchfield applies regardless of substance suspected—warrant or exigency or voluntary consent required
Whether reading/signing DL-26 made consent voluntary despite Birchfield	DL-26 accurately informed defendant of penalties for refusal in drug-DUI context, so consent was voluntary	DL-26’s warnings about enhanced penalties coerced consent because they suggested criminal consequences for refusal irrespective of substance	Rejected Commonwealth; DL-26 warnings rendered consent involuntary under the totality of circumstances

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) (holding warrantless blood draws unlawful absent a warrant or exigent circumstances and criminal penalties cannot be used to coerce consent)
O’Connell v. Commonwealth, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (discusses the DL-26 chemical-test warnings used in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural note on interlocutory appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 311)