141 A.3d 1287
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- On Feb. 27, 2013, John Robert Carley, Jr. drove into a GetGo, where employees and an off-duty officer observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, glassy/red eyes, stumbling).
- Scott Township officers arrived, observed Carley’s intoxication, and arrested him for suspected DUI after he became argumentative and combative.
- Officers could not complete field sobriety tests because Carley resisted arrest and was physically subdued and carried to the patrol car; he refused chemical testing at the hospital.
- Carley was charged with DUI (general impairment), driving while privileges suspended/revoked, and disorderly conduct; he was convicted after a non-jury trial that incorporated suppression-hearing evidence.
- The court sentenced Carley to an aggregate 18–36 months’ imprisonment. Carley appealed, arguing statutory and constitutional error for punishing/referring to his refusal to submit to blood testing without a warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McNeely creates a constitutional right to refuse chemical testing | McNeely means natural dissipation does not justify warrantless blood draws, so refusal to consent is a constitutional right | McNeely does not create a general constitutional right to refuse chemical testing; prior PA precedent stands | Court: McNeely does not establish a constitutional right to refuse; Beshore and subsequent PA authority remain controlling |
| Whether sentencing under 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3803(b)(4) & 3804(c) punished the exercise of a constitutional right (enhanced penalty for refusal) | Carley: Enhanced sentencing for refusal is unconstitutional because it penalizes exercise of a constitutional right | Commonwealth: No constitutional right to refuse; refusal is a sentencing factor and defendant received statutory warnings | Court: Enhancement valid; warnings were given; Mobley controls—enhancement does not violate due process here |
| Whether evidence of refusal should have been suppressed | Carley: Evidence of his refusal was protected by the Fourth Amendment and its admission tainted his conviction | Commonwealth: No constitutional protection for refusal; evidence of refusal is admissible per statute and precedent | Court: No suppression—no constitutional right to refuse, so admission of refusal evidence was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (natural alcohol dissipation does not create a per se exigency to permit warrantless blood draws)
- Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under Pennsylvania implied-consent law)
- Faircloth v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp., 99 A.3d 583 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (McNeely does not confer a right to refuse chemical testing in civil license-suspension context)
- Sprecher v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp., 100 A.3d 768 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (same conclusion in implied-consent civil context)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (refusal can affect grading/sentence; enhancements require proper notice/warnings)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 118 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (considered McNeely’s application to blood draws but did not resolve whether warrant always required)