Commonwealth v. Evans
153 A.3d 323
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- David Eugene Evans was arrested for DUI on May 19, 2012; police transported him to a hospital and obtained a warrantless blood draw that tested at 0.18% BAC.
- Officers informed Evans of Pennsylvania’s implied-consent and O’Connell warnings, including that refusal could suspend his license and lead to enhanced criminal penalties if convicted after refusal.
- Evans moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing his consent was involuntary because it was coerced by the threat of enhanced criminal penalties and no warrant was obtained.
- The trial court denied suppression, found Evans guilty after a stipulated bench trial, and sentenced him; Evans appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
- The Superior Court reviewed voluntariness of consent under the totality of circumstances and applied recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Birchfield) regarding criminal penalties for refusal to submit to blood tests.
- The Superior Court vacated Evans’s judgment of sentence and the suppression order and remanded for reevaluation of consent given the officer’s partially inaccurate advisory about criminal penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to a warrantless blood draw was voluntary when officers warned refusal could bring enhanced criminal penalties | Commonwealth: consent was voluntary because Evans agreed after receiving implied-consent and O’Connell warnings | Evans: consent was coerced by threat of enhanced criminal penalties and therefore involuntary; warrant required absent valid exception | Court: Vacated suppression denial and sentence; Birchfield requires reevaluation because the officer’s advisory about criminal penalties was partially inaccurate, so voluntariness must be reexamined under the totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding states may not criminalize refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test and requiring reexamination of consent when advisories are partially inaccurate)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (exigent-circumstances analysis for warrantless blood draws requires case-by-case totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood test is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (consent validity assessed under totality of circumstances; Commonwealth bears burden to prove voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Kohl, 615 A.2d 308 (Pa. 1992) (blood testing performed at government direction constitutes a search)