Commonwealth v. Ennels
167 A.3d 716
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On March 12, 2016 officers stopped John Lamonte Ennels after a reported accident and observed the smell of marijuana and a partially smoked blunt; he was arrested for DUI (controlled substance) and general impairment.
- At the police station Officer Rodriguez read the Pennsylvania DL‑26 implied‑consent form to Ennels, who signed it and submitted to a warrantless blood draw.
- The DL‑26 warned that refusal could result in license suspension and enhanced criminal penalties (minimum 72 hours jail, $1,000 fine up to 5 years/$10,000) tied to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c).
- Ennels moved to suppress the blood‑test results; the trial court granted the motion relying on Birchfield v. North Dakota.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing (1) Birchfield should not bar warrantless blood tests in drug‑DUI cases because breath tests are not an alternative for drugs, and (2) Ennels’ consent was voluntary because the DL‑26 accurately reflected penalties for drug DUI.
- The Superior Court affirmed: Birchfield applies to drug‑related DUIs and the DL‑26 warning (threat of enhanced criminal penalties for refusal) rendered consent involuntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield prohibits warrantless blood tests in drug‑related DUI cases | Birchfield’s reasoning is limited to alcohol because breath tests are a less intrusive alternative; blood draws are necessary for drugs, so warrantless blood tests should be permissible | Birchfield’s analysis focuses on blood tests’ intrusiveness and requires a warrant, exigency, or voluntary consent not coerced by threat of criminal penalties, regardless of substance | Birchfield applies: warrantless blood tests require a warrant or exigency, or uncoerced consent; implied‑consent cannot be based on threat of criminal penalties |
| Whether Ennels’ consent was voluntary despite penalties for drug DUI matching the refusal‑enhancement described on DL‑26 | DL‑26 accurately described penalties for drug DUI, so there was no threat of heightened punishment for refusal and consent was voluntary | DL‑26 warned of enhanced criminal penalties for refusal; a reasonable person would believe refusal carried criminal punishment—Birchfield bars obtaining consent via such a threat | Consent was invalid: DL‑26’s warning of criminal enhancements for refusal rendered consent involuntary and suppression was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible incident to arrest; warrantless blood tests not; states may not criminalize refusal to submit to blood tests)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural metabolization of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency is case‑specific)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (remanded where implied‑consent warning of criminal penalties may have tainted consent post‑Birchfield)
- Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 635 (Pa. Super. 2017) (vacated sentence where enhanced penalties were applied in violation of Birchfield)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (standard for evaluating voluntariness of consent under totality of circumstances)