Com. v. Schwab, L., Com. v. Schwab, L. No. 1896 MDA 2016

On Feb 3, 2016, Larry Schwab was arrested for suspected DUI (controlled substance) and taken to a hospital for a blood draw.
Officer McCreary read and Schwab signed the Pennsylvania DL-26 implied-consent form before the blood test.
The DL-26 warned that refusal could lead to civil suspension and enhanced criminal penalties upon later conviction — including penalties equivalent to the highest alcohol-related DUI.
Schwab submitted to the blood test but later moved to suppress the results, arguing his consent was not knowing and voluntary because it followed an improper threat of enhanced criminal penalties for refusal.
The trial court granted the suppression; the Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court affirmed, finding consent involuntary under Birchfield.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Birchfield requires a warrant or voluntary consent unobtained by threat before a blood draw in drug-related DUI cases	Commonwealth: Pennsylvania's implied-consent scheme is enforceable for drug DUIs because blood testing is the only viable method to detect drugs	Schwab: Under Birchfield, threatening criminal penalties for refusal renders consent involuntary; a warrant or voluntary consent is required	Held: Birchfield applies to drug DUIs; blood tests require a warrant, emergency exception, or voluntary consent free from threat
Whether the DL-26 warnings rendered Schwab's consent involuntary by implying enhanced criminal penalties for refusal	Commonwealth: DL-26 accurately reflected penalties and did not coerce consent for drug-related DUI	Schwab: Warnings created an impermissible threat of increased criminal punishment for refusal, making consent involuntary	Held: Under the totality of circumstances, the DL-26 warnings reasonably conveyed enhanced criminal consequences and produced involuntary consent; suppression affirmed

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood draws are unconstitutional absent consent or a warrant/case-specific emergency)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Cauley, 10 A.3d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate review limits when defendant prevailed at suppression)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (observing Pennsylvania implied-consent law imposes criminal penalties on refusal in tension with Birchfield)
Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural rule permitting interlocutory appeal by the Commonwealth)