Com. v. Pena, E.
Com. v. Pena, E. No. 1452 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- On May 2, 2015, Pena was involved in a car crash, found bleeding from the head, with slurred speech and smell of alcohol; medics treated him for a concussion and transported him to a hospital.
- About one hour later Officer Shead met Pena at the hospital, arrested him for DUI, and read O’Connell warnings and the chemical testing consent form.
- Pena did not verbally acknowledge understanding; he made a marking on one form and initialed a date line on another while lying on a gurney and wearing a neck brace.
- A nurse drew Pena’s blood without a warrant approximately 16 minutes after Shead arrived; officers did not obtain a warrant before the draw.
- The suppression court found Pena’s head trauma impaired his ability to understand or give voluntary, knowing consent; the trial court affirmed and the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Pena) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pena knowingly/voluntarily consented to blood draw | Implied-consent statute and the officer’s reading of O’Connell warnings made consent valid | Pena’s head trauma and incapacity prevented understanding or voluntary consent | Held: Consent not established; suppression affirmed |
| Whether warrant was required despite probable cause | Warrant unnecessary due to implied consent and probable cause | Warrant required because consent was not valid and no exigency existed | Held: Warrantless draw invalid; no exigent circumstance shown |
| Whether implied-consent statute justifies involuntary blood draw | Implied consent permits testing when statutory conditions met | Statute does not permit involuntary seizure when person cannot refuse knowingly | Held: Statute cannot justify nonconsensual draw under these facts (citing Myers and Birchfield issues) |
| Whether officer could rely on exigent circumstances (alcohol dissipation) | Natural dissipation creates exigency | McNeely rejects per se exigency from dissipation; warrant available | Held: No exigency; officers could have obtained a warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent voluntariness assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (using criminal penalties to compel blood draws can be coercive)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 118 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (implied-consent statute does not permit involuntary blood seizure when suspect cannot refuse)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (consent valid where suspect had full use of faculties and understood rights)
- Commonwealth v. Riedel, 651 A.2d 135 (exceptions to warrant requirement include consent and exigency)
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 460 A.2d 767 (consent must be knowing and voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040 (Commonwealth bears burden to prove legality of challenged search)