Com. v. Phillips, R.
3190 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- At ~2:42 a.m. on Dec. 28, 2013, Trooper Thomas observed Richard Phillips driving a GMC Envoy at 72 MPH in a 55 MPH zone and swerving across the centerline/fog line multiple times; trooper initiated a traffic stop.
- During the stop, Trooper Thomas smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred/mumbled speech, and saw Phillips fumble for paperwork.
- Phillips performed field sobriety tests (one-leg stand, walk-and-turn) and a portable breath test; trooper testified Phillips performed poorly and the PBT indicated BAC over the legal limit.
- Phillips consented to a blood draw at the DUI Center; blood was collected in a gray-top tube, refrigerated on camera, sent to Wyoming Regional Laboratory, and tested by a forensic scientist who reported BAC 0.091%.
- Trial court denied Phillips’s omnibus pretrial motion (seeking lab procedure documents and suppression), found him guilty after a bench trial of DUI (0.08–0.10% general impairment) and related traffic offenses, and sentenced him to 30 days electronic monitoring, fines/costs, treatment, and a 12-month license suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Phillips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of stop/detention and validity of consent to blood draw | Stop and continued detention lawful: Trooper observed speeding, lane violations, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, poor FST performance, and failed PBT, giving reasonable suspicion and then probable cause for arrest and blood testing | Continued detention was unlawful; observed signs (odor, bloodshot eyes, mumbled speech) insufficient to justify DUI investigation; trooper’s FST recollection unreliable and biased, so consent to blood draw was tainted | Affirmed: stop was supported by probable cause for traffic violations; observations and failed tests provided reasonable suspicion and probable cause for arrest and blood draw |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking Phillips to blood sample / integrity of sample | Forensic testimony and chain evidence (gray-top tube, refrigerated on camera, lab integrity checks) permit reasonable inference sample was unimpaired; scientist’s BAC result establishes element | Contends phlebotomist did not identify Phillips on video and did not testify she mixed the sample, so connection/integrity of sample unreliable | Affirmed: sufficiency established; challenge waived in part for Rule 1925(b) omission; Commonwealth need only show reasonable inference sample was unimpaired |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (warrantless vehicle stops and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion for vehicle stops)
- Commonwealth v. Hilliar, 943 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2008) (odor of alcohol and slurred speech support probable cause for DUI arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 575 A.2d 131 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Commonwealth must show reasonable inference blood sample was unimpaired)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 339 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 1975) (same principle regarding sample sanctity)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement may be waived)