Com. v. Podvojsky, D., 1793 WDA 2016

On Oct. 13, 2014, Pennsylvania State Police stopped Derek Podvojsky; he admitted drinking several beers and was taken to a hospital for a blood draw after being read the DL-26 form.
The DL-26 warning told Podvojsky he would face increased criminal penalties if he refused the blood draw — a warning that was legally correct at the time of the stop.
The blood test showed alcohol; Podvojsky was charged with DUI (general impairment and highest rate) and summary offenses.
While the case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws generally unlawful, rendering the DL-26 warning partially inaccurate.
Podvojsky moved to suppress the blood results; the trial court granted suppression, finding consent involuntary under the totality of circumstances and that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a good-faith exception to the state constitutional exclusionary rule. The Commonwealth appealed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Podvojsky's Argument	Held
Whether evidence is admissible under the federal good-faith exception when officer relied on then-binding precedent/authorized practice	Police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-valid law and DL-26; Davis/Krull good-faith rule should apply to preserve evidence	Good-faith exception does not save the evidence under Pennsylvania constitutional protection; trial court correctly excluded evidence under Article I, §8	Rejected Commonwealth: Pennsylvania does not recognize a state good-faith exception; suppression under state constitution proper
Whether Podvojsky’s statements admitting drinking render his consent voluntary despite the inaccurate DL-26 warning	Admission of drinking shows cooperation and voluntariness of consent	Consent was involuntary given custody, coercive (incorrect) DL-26 warning, lack of knowledge of right to refuse, and subsequent belligerence; totality of circumstances show involuntariness	Held Podvojsky’s consent was involuntary under totality of circumstances; suppression proper

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (breath may be compelled; blood generally requires warrant)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith reliance on binding appellate precedent can justify admission)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith reliance on statute later invalidated may preclude exclusion)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (exigent circumstances exception to warrant requirement limited in DUI cases)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw is a search under Fourth Amendment)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (blood tests qualify as searches)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (evaluating voluntariness where DL-26 warnings partially inaccurate)
Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 821 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 2003) (factors for voluntariness of consent under totality of circumstances)