Commonwealth v. Haines
168 A.3d 231
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Feb 8, 2015: Haines was involved in a fatal crash; driver of the other vehicle died and a passenger was seriously injured. Haines was transported to a hospital for observation.
- At the scene an officer smelled alcohol on Haines and Haines admitted consuming one beer. Officer requested a blood test.
- At the hospital officer asked Haines to submit to a blood draw; Haines signed PennDOT DL-26 warnings (which include a statement about enhanced criminal penalties for refusal) and blood was drawn; result was .250% BAC.
- Haines moved to suppress the blood-test results. The trial court granted the motion, concluding Haines’s consent was involuntary because the DL-26 warning could have coerced consent.
- Commonwealth appealed; Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court made necessary factual findings (particularly the timing of consent relative to the DL-26 warning) and whether 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755 authorized the draw. The Superior Court reversed and remanded for further factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Haines) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haines voluntarily consented to blood draw | Haines consented before DL-26 was read, so consent was not tainted by the enhanced-penalty warning | Consent was involuntary because DL-26 warning (which references enhanced criminal penalties) coerced consent | Remanded: record lacks trial-court finding on whether consent occurred before or after DL-26; Superior Court reversed and remanded for factual determination and totality-of-circumstances evaluation |
| Whether Birchfield precludes admitting blood obtained after implied-consent warnings | Birchfield inapplicable if consent was voluntary and occurred before the inaccurate warning | Birchfield requires scrutiny because implied-consent warnings imposing criminal penalties may invalidate consent | Court held timing is dispositive; must determine whether consent preceded the warning before applying Birchfield analysis |
| Whether 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755 required hospital to draw blood (making consent issue irrelevant) | Section 3755 authorized compelled blood draws at ER when probable cause and treatment present; hospital should have drawn blood | Hospital declined to draw under §3755; Haines’ statutory right to refuse remains at issue | Court declined to treat hospital’s failure as an independent basis to deny suppression; admissibility still hinges on validity of consent (remanded) |
| Remedy and next step | Admit results if consent found valid or §3755 applicable | Exclude if consent found involuntary | Superior Court vacated suppression order and remanded for trial court to make factual findings on timing and then reassess voluntariness under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrant required for blood draws; implied-consent rules that impose criminal penalties on refusal are unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Pennsylvania DL-26 warnings referencing enhanced penalties can render consent involuntary; remand for re-evaluation of consent under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (standard for evaluating voluntariness of consent under totality of circumstances)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (plurality discussing implied-consent laws and exigent-circumstances in blood-draw context)