Com. v. McConnell, R.
Com. v. McConnell, R. No. 1825 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Trooper Wood responded to a reported ATV theft and found McConnell standing next to an ATV on the roadway; the complainant and other troopers were present.
- McConnell initially said he and his son took the ATV as collateral; the trooper believed the ATV belonged to McConnell.
- Trooper Wood detected alcohol odor, observed slurred speech and stumbling, asked about drinking, and McConnell admitted to drinking beer and operating the ATV on the roadway.
- A horizontal gaze nystagmus field test was administered; McConnell was arrested for DUI and submitted to a warrantless blood draw that returned a BAC of 0.140.
- A jury acquitted McConnell of DUI, but the trial court convicted him of multiple vehicle/ATV offenses; McConnell sought suppression of the blood test and raised constitutional challenges on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McConnell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(2) violates due process | Not argued on appeal (Commonwealth failed to file brief) | McConnell argued statute unconstitutional; claimed preservation via other case | Issue waived for failure to preserve in this case; previously rejected in separate McConnell decision |
| Whether the initial encounter was an unlawful seizure (reasonable suspicion) | Trooper had dispatch about theft and observed statements supporting investigation | McConnell argued detention preceded his admission of driving and proximity to ATV is insufficient to show driving | Trooper had reasonable suspicion based on dispatch and appellant’s admission about taking the ATV; investigatory detention lawful |
| Whether trooper had probable cause to arrest for DUI | Trooper smelled alcohol, observed slurred speech and stumbling, McConnell admitted drinking and operating ATV; field sobriety test indicated impairment | McConnell said observations were insufficiently described to show probable cause; proximity to ATV doesn’t prove driving | Probable cause existed based on odor, admissions, observations, and FST; arrest lawful |
| Whether consent to warrantless blood draw was involuntary after Birchfield | Commonwealth did not argue below that consent issue was preserved | McConnell argued Birchfield makes consent invalid where driver was warned he would face penalties for refusal | Claim was not preserved in lower court; appellate review waived despite Birchfield and Evans developments |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (holding motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing a blood test and addressing voluntariness of consent)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (new constitutional rules apply to cases pending on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applied Birchfield to Pennsylvania implied-consent warnings and remanded for reevaluation of consent)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (articulation of reasonable suspicion for investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Costa-Hernandez, 802 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. 2002) (circumstantial evidence may establish that a vehicle was driven)