Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Myers, D.
164 A.3d 1162
Pa.2017Background
- Police arrested Darrell Myers for suspected DUI after observing signs of intoxication (slurred speech, alcohol odor, open bottle) and transported him to a hospital.
- At the hospital medical staff administered haloperidol, rendering Myers unconscious before police gave implied-consent (O’Connell) warnings or requested chemical testing.
- Officer Domenic read O’Connell warnings to an unresponsive Myers and then instructed a nurse to draw blood without a warrant; no consent could be obtained contemporaneously.
- Myers moved to suppress the blood-test results on Fourth Amendment and state-constitutional grounds; municipal court, trial court, and Superior Court suppressed the results. Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court considered whether Pennsylvania’s implied-consent statute (75 Pa.C.S. § 1547) authorizes a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious arrestee and whether implied consent is an independent exception to the warrant requirement.
- The Court affirmed suppression: it held Myers had a statutory right to refuse testing that could not be exercised while unconscious, and statutory implied consent does not substitute for voluntary consent under the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 1547’s right to refuse applies to unconscious arrestees | Myers: statutory right to refuse applies to “any person placed under arrest,” so unconscious arrestees retain the right and cannot be tested without opportunity to choose | Commonwealth: implied consent means drivers have already consented by driving; unconsciousness does not revoke that deemed consent | Held: Right to refuse applies to unconscious arrestees; Myers could not make a knowing choice and thus could not consent |
| Whether statutory implied consent (75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a)) is itself a warrant exception | Myers: statute does not permit involuntary blood draws; voluntariness at time of test is required | Commonwealth: implied consent obviates need for warrant when arrestee did not affirmatively refuse | Held: Implied consent is not an independent exception to the warrant requirement; actual voluntary consent (analyzed under totality of circumstances) is required |
| Whether Myers voluntarily consented to the blood draw | Myers: unconscious due to medication; could not voluntarily consent or refuse | Commonwealth: no affirmative refusal; implied consent remains in force | Held: No voluntary consent—Myers was unconscious and could not make a knowing choice; consent exception fails |
| Whether any other warrant exception (e.g., exigent circumstances) justified the draw | Myers: no exigency shown; McNeely requires case-by-case exigency analysis | Commonwealth: relied primarily on implied consent, not exigency | Held: Commonwealth did not establish exigent circumstances or other exception; warrantless blood draw unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (case-by-case exigency inquiry for warrantless blood draws)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (warrantless breath tests may be incident to arrest but warrantless blood tests cannot be justified by implied-consent statutes that impose criminal penalties)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (blood tests are Fourth Amendment searches)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Pa. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242 (555 A.2d 873) (police must inform arrestee of consequences so choice to test is knowing and conscious)
- Commonwealth v. Eisenhart, 531 Pa. 103 (611 A.2d 681) (statutory right to refuse chemical testing)
- Commonwealth v. Riedel, 539 Pa. 172 (651 A.2d 135) (discussion of implied-consent context and limits)