211 A.3d 761
Pa.2019Background
- Thomas Bell was arrested for DUI in May 2015, read the PennDOT DL-26, and refused a requested blood test; no warrant or blood draw occurred. He was convicted at nonjury trial where the officer testified about his refusal. Trial court granted a new trial after Birchfield, concluding refusal evidence was impermissible; Superior Court reversed.
- The legal question presented: whether 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(e) (allowing admission of a motorist’s refusal to submit to chemical testing as evidence at a DUI trial) violates the Fourth Amendment or Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Pennsylvania’s implied-consent statute (former §1547) deems driving to imply consent to chemical tests and authorizes civil penalties (license suspension) and evidentiary consequences (§1547(e)), but Birchfield later held criminalizing refusal to blood tests is unconstitutional.
- The Commonwealth argued Birchfield left intact civil penalties and evidentiary consequences for refusal, and that implied-consent scenarios are distinguishable from ordinary warrantless-search refusals (Welch/Chapman).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found the Article I, § 8 claim waived for lack of preservation and limited review to the Fourth Amendment question, holding §1547(e)’s evidentiary consequence constitutional post-Birchfield.
- Court’s rationale: Birchfield and McNeely reject categorical warrantless blood draws, but they also recognized prior approval of implied-consent laws’ civil and evidentiary consequences; those consequences are not so coercive as to render consent involuntary or to violate the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Bell's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1547(e) violates the Fourth Amendment by admitting refusal to a warrantless blood test as consciousness-of-guilt evidence | Birchfield and McNeely recognize a Fourth Amendment right to refuse warrantless blood draws; admitting refusal penalizes exercise of that right and is therefore unconstitutional | Birchfield expressly preserved the validity of civil penalties and evidentiary consequences in implied-consent schemes; §1547(e) is an accepted non-criminal consequence and may be admitted | Held constitutional: evidentiary consequence under §1547(e) permissible post-Birchfield; admission of refusal may be considered with other evidence |
| Whether Birchfield’s prohibition on criminalizing refusal logically precludes non-criminal evidentiary consequences | Refusal to a warrantless blood draw is protected; any adverse consequence (including evidentiary use) penalizes the right and coerces consent | Birchfield forbids criminal penalties but did not disapprove civil/evidentiary consequences; such consequences are a permissible part of the implied-consent bargain | Court adopts the Commonwealth’s view: Birchfield forbids criminal penalties for refusal but does not invalidate evidentiary consequences like §1547(e) |
| Whether Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, § 8 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment here | (Alternate) Pennsylvania Constitution protects against use of refusal evidence; §1547(e) violates Article I, § 8 | Claim waived below; Pennsylvania courts have treated implied-consent issues coterminous with federal Fourth Amendment law | Article I, § 8 claim found waived and not decided on merits |
| Applicability of Welch/Chapman (refusal to consent to warrantless searches inadmissible) to implied-consent blood-testing context | Those precedents control: refusal to unconstitutional search cannot be used as evidence of guilt | Welch/Chapman apply outside implied-consent contexts; implied consent creates a statutory bargain distinguishable from ordinary refusal-to-search cases | Welch/Chapman not applied here; implied-consent context is the distinguishing factor and §1547(e) remains permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw may be reasonable under exigent circumstances)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (implied-consent scheme: admission of refusal addressed under Fifth Amendment)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency analyzed case-by-case)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (breath tests permissible incident to arrest; blood tests are more intrusive and criminalizing refusal to blood tests is unconstitutional; prior approvals of civil/evidentiary consequences noted)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 164 A.3d 1162 (Pa. 2017) (plurality: warrantless blood draw from unconscious suspect violated implied-consent statute and Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Chapman, 136 A.3d 126 (Pa. 2016) (admission of refusal to warrantless searches problematic outside implied-consent scenarios)
- Commonwealth v. Welch, 585 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 1991) (refusal to consent to warrantless bedroom search inadmissible to show consciousness of guilt)