Com. v. Stephenson, D.
Com. v. Stephenson, D. No. 1482 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- Defendant Dannie Lee Stephenson was arrested for DUI and taken by Trooper Frazer to a hospital for a blood draw under Pennsylvania’s implied consent statute (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(b)).
- Stephenson signed the DL-26 form while in custody; police did not inform him he could refuse and the form warned of harsher penalties for refusal.
- Stephenson said, “Just take me,” which the Commonwealth argued amounted to voluntary consent to the blood draw.
- Trial court suppressed the blood-test results, finding consent was not knowing and voluntary and that Birchfield v. North Dakota precludes warrantless blood draws based solely on implied consent.
- Commonwealth appealed, arguing the good-faith exception should apply and that the court erred by not permitting evidence of Stephenson’s prior DUI to show voluntary consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusionary rule should not apply because officers acted in good faith | Police relied on then-valid Pennsylvania implied-consent statute; good-faith exception should preserve blood test | Birchfield limits warrantless blood draws; privacy interests weigh against applying good-faith exception | Court: Good-faith exception inapplicable due to significant privacy interests in blood draws and Birchfield’s rule |
| Whether Stephenson voluntarily consented to blood draw | “Just take me” and routine practice support that Stephenson knowingly consented; prior DUI evidence should be admitted | Consent was coerced by custodial setting, statutory penalty threat on DL-26, and lack of advice that refusal was permissible | Court: Consent was not knowing and voluntary; DL-26 and custodial context created coercion; prior DUI evidence irrelevant and properly excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood tests cannot be criminally penalized under implied consent; protects significant privacy interests)
- Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 836 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2003) (Rule 311(d) applies to pretrial rulings that suppress or exclude Commonwealth evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for suppression appeals; deference to suppression court factfindings)
- Commonwealth v. Keller, 823 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate review: conclusions of law are reviewed de novo)