Commonwealth v. Jones
121 A.3d 524
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On April 28, 2013 an officer stopped Patrick Jones for suspended vehicle registration and smelled a very strong odor of burnt marijuana from Jones’ car, where Jones was the sole occupant.
- Officer handcuffed Jones, asked him to submit to chemical blood testing under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547, and Jones consented.
- Blood results showed 7.7 ng/mL Delta-9-THC and 100 ng/mL Delta-9-Carboxy THC.
- Jones moved to suppress evidence; the trial court suppressed items seized after handcuffing but denied suppression of the blood test results, finding the officer had probable cause to request testing based on the odor.
- After a bench trial, Jones was convicted of DUI (controlled substance metabolite) and sentenced; he appealed arguing the odor alone did not support probable cause for a §1547 blood draw and that the blood results were fruit of an illegal arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether odor of marijuana alone supplies probable cause to request a §1547 blood test for controlled-substance DUI | Commonwealth: odor of marijuana is evidence of consumption and supports reasonable grounds (probable cause) to request testing | Jones: odor alone is like alcohol odor cases and requires additional corroborating indicia of impairment before requesting blood testing | The court held odor alone sufficed for probable cause for a §1547 blood draw for marijuana-based DUI because any amount of a Schedule I substance in blood is prohibited |
| Whether blood-test results must be suppressed as fruit of an illegal arrest | Commonwealth: arrest and blood testing were lawful so results are admissible | Jones: if arrest was illegal, blood results are fruit of poisonous tree and must be suppressed | Because the arrest/blood draw were lawful, the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree claim fails and results were admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings and when appellate court reviews legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Aiello, 675 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 1996) (probable cause/"reasonable grounds" under §1547 means probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Dommel, 885 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussion of probable cause standard and everyday-life considerations)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (probable cause is a practical, nontechnical standard; not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt)