253 A.3d 266
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Pennsylvania State Police troopers observed Verbeck’s vehicle cross and then straddle the double-yellow line while passing the troopers’ oncoming patrol car; troopers turned and stopped the vehicle.
- Troopers smelled marijuana and alcohol; Verbeck failed standardized field sobriety tests, a portable breath test was positive for alcohol, and marijuana was found in the vehicle.
- Verbeck was arrested, read and signed Form DL-26B (advising he could refuse a warrantless blood draw), and verbally consented to a blood draw at the hospital.
- Verbeck filed a motion to suppress; the suppression court denied it. After a non-jury trial he was convicted of multiple DUI and related offenses.
- At sentencing the court treated a prior acceptance of ARD as a prior offense to enhance his mandatory minimum under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804; Verbeck appealed, raising issues about the stop, the voluntariness of blood consent (and a Birchfield challenge), and the ARD-based enhancement.
- The Superior Court affirmed the denial of suppression and consent claims but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under Commonwealth v. Chichkin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Verbeck) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for traffic stop | Dashcam contradicts troopers; no lawful basis to stop | Troopers credibly testified Verbeck crossed into oncoming lane creating safety hazard | Stop upheld; suppression court credibility credited and video was inconclusive |
| Voluntariness of consent to blood draw; Birchfield challenge | Consent coerced (threat of jail); license restoration fee coerces by making refusal effectively criminal | DL-26B and verbal warnings properly given; statutory penalties for refusal are civil | Consent found knowing and voluntary; license restoration fee not equivalent to criminal fine; no Birchfield violation |
| Sentencing enhancement by treating prior ARD as prior offense | Using ARD to enhance sentence improperly increased mandatory minimum without proof beyond reasonable doubt | Chichkin wrongly decided; but Commonwealth urges deference | Under Chichkin, §3806(a) cannot treat ARD acceptance as a prior offense; judgment vacated and remanded for resentencing as first-time DUI offender |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa. Super. 2020) (§3806(a) cannot treat ARD acceptance as prior offense for DUI sentencing enhancement)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrant required for blood tests; refusal may support civil penalties but not criminal conviction without warrant)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Robertson, 186 A.3d 440 (Pa. Super. 2018) (factors for assessing voluntariness of consent)
- Shoul v. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 173 A.3d 669 (Pa. 2017) (discussing severity of license-related penalties)
- Marchese v. Commonwealth, 169 A.3d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (license suspensions characterized as civil, not criminal)