Com. v. Williams, R.
2329 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- On November 12, 2014, Rishad Williams was arrested in Philadelphia for DUI after being observed at the scene of a crash with signs of intoxication (watery, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech; odor of alcohol).
- Officers transported Williams to a hospital for chemical testing; he was handcuffed, wearing a neck brace, and was asleep/unresponsive when encountered by police at about 5:07 a.m.
- Lieutenant Taylor administered O’Connell warnings while Williams was sleeping; a nurse drew Williams’s blood without a warrant and without recorded consent or refusal.
- In Municipal Court, Williams’s motion to suppress the blood test was denied and he was convicted after a bench trial; he was later sentenced.
- Williams filed a writ of certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the denial of suppression, vacated the sentence, and reversed the conviction; the Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the Common Pleas order, applying Commonwealth v. Myers and U.S. Supreme Court precedent to hold that a warrantless blood draw from an unresponsive person who cannot refuse is unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances or a warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Williams's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw from an unresponsive/sleeping DUI arrestee is permissible under Pennsylvania’s implied-consent statute | Implied-consent statute supplies legal basis for taking blood; Myers was wrongly decided and not controlling; good-faith exception applies | Implied consent is insufficient when the subject is unable to affirmatively consent or refuse; officers must obtain a warrant absent exigency | Warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional where arrestee was unresponsive and could not exercise statutory refusal; Myers controls and suppression was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 118 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (held police must obtain a warrant before drawing blood from an unconscious DUI suspect despite implied-consent law)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (Fourth Amendment requires case-by-case exigency analysis; no per se exception for warrantless blood draws in DUI investigations)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) (breath tests may be treated differently from blood tests; States cannot criminalize refusal to submit to blood tests on pain of criminal penalty)
- Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O'Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (describes required statutory warnings regarding chemical testing and implied-consent consequences)