48 Pa. D. & C.5th 415
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Defendant Brian Creazzo struck a disabled, stationary vehicle on Route 22; the other driver, Shane Uttard, was fatally crushed between vehicles. Creazzo was transported to Lehigh Valley Hospital — Muhlenberg.
- Troopers Liptok and Maner questioned Creazzo at the scene; he denied being under the influence and repeatedly asked whether Uttard was dead.
- Troopers asked Creazzo to voluntarily submit to a blood draw due to the severity of the crash; Creazzo agreed and said he had "nothing in his system."
- Creazzo had a minor head cut, refused medical treatment, was described as "a little shaken up," and was transported to the hospital (consensually, per the troopers). He may have been handcuffed per regulation but no signs of intoxication were observed by the troopers.
- The defendant moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing his consent was not voluntary; the Commonwealth conceded there was no probable-cause-based arrest and treated the encounter as lawful.
- After evidentiary hearings, the court found the encounter lawful and, under the totality of the circumstances, that Creazzo’s consent to the blood draw was voluntary, denying the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of consent to blood draw | Commonwealth: consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; no coercion; defendant acknowledged he had nothing in his system. | Creazzo: consent was not voluntary (implicitly arguing coercion/custodial pressure and lack of warnings). | Consent was voluntary; suppression denied. |
| Lawfulness of encounter and transport to hospital | Commonwealth: encounter was lawful and noncustodial; transport was consensual so no arrest required. | Creazzo: argued police lacked probable cause to arrest (but did not contest encounter legality). | Court agreed encounter was lawful and not a seizure requiring probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Caban, 60 A.3d 120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (totality-of-circumstances test for consent searches)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 871 A.2d 267 (Pa. Super. 2005) (consent exception to warrant requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonte, 859 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2004) (factors for assessing voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 821 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 2003) (consent and voluntariness principles)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 11 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (no per se requirement to warn that blood test results may be used prosecutorially; consent evaluated under totality)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent is a factual inquiry; knowledge of right to refuse is a factor but not prerequisite)
- Commonwealth v. Douglas, 539 A.2d 412 (Pa. Super. 1988) (consensual transport not equivalent to custodial arrest)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (officers may request consent in noncoercive encounters)