172 A.3d 613
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On Oct. 13, 2014, trooper stopped Brian Carper for an expired inspection sticker; trooper suspected drug-impaired driving and transported Carper to a hospital. Carper was read DL-26 warnings (which at the time reflected then-controlling law), consented to a blood draw, and the test detected a controlled substance.
- Carper was charged with DUI — controlled substance (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1) & (d)(2)), manufacturing a designer drug, possession of paraphernalia, and summary offenses.
- While the case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield, holding warrantless blood draws generally require a warrant; that decision rendered parts of the DL-26 warnings incorrect.
- Carper moved to suppress the blood results (arguing a Fourth Amendment violation) and moved for habeas corpus as to the DUI-controlled-substance count, arguing the Commonwealth could not make a prima facie case without the blood test.
- The trial court suppressed the blood evidence and granted habeas as to the § 3802(d)(1) charge. The Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court affirmed: it held Carper preserved a state-constitutional (Article I, § 8) claim in his post-hearing brief; Pennsylvania law does not recognize a good-faith exception to exclusion under Article I, § 8; and blood-test results are required to make a prima facie § 3802(d)(1) case.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Carper's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carper waived an Article I, § 8 claim by raising only a Fourth Amendment claim at suppression | Carper implicitly waived state-constitutional claim; post-hearing brief insufficient | Post-hearing brief preserved Article I, § 8 claim; Commonwealth was not prejudiced | Carper preserved the state-constitutional claim by raising it in his post-suppression brief; no waiver |
| Whether evidence is admissible under the Davis/Krull (good-faith) rule | Evidence admissible because officers relied in good faith on binding appellate precedent/statute (Davis/Krull) | Even if officers relied in good faith, Pennsylvania’s Article I, § 8 does not recognize a good-faith exception | Good-faith exception applies federally but not under Article I, § 8; suppression was correct under PA Constitution |
| Whether Davis/Krull rule applies to Carper’s suppression claim | Davis/Krull should govern and allow admission | If claim is analyzed under PA Constitution, Davis/Krull is inapplicable | Davis/Krull inapplicable to Article I, § 8 claims; Pennsylvania law rejects good-faith exception |
| Whether blood-test evidence is necessary for a prima facie § 3802(d)(1) case | Commonwealth can make prima facie case with wholly circumstantial evidence | Griffith requires a measurement (blood) to show any detectable amount of Schedule I–III drug | Blood-test results are necessary to establish a prima facie § 3802(d)(1) violation; habeas properly granted as to that count |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (applying good-faith exception when officers relied on binding precedent)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (applying good-faith exception when officers relied on a statute later invalidated)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (warrant required for blood draws; breath may be compelled)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 613 Pa. 171 (32 A.3d 1231) (§ 3802(d)(1) requires a chemical measurement to show any detectable controlled substance)
- Commonwealth v. Frederick, 124 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (no good-faith exception under Article I, § 8)