Commonwealth v. Kurtz
172 A.3d 1153
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 2, 2015, Troopers stopped Gregory Kurtz for suspected DUI; Trooper Caley arrived as backup, smelled alcohol, observed signs of impairment, and arrested Kurtz.
- At the hospital, Trooper Caley read the DL-26 implied-consent form (which warned that refusal could lead to enhanced criminal penalties) at ~11:45 p.m.; Kurtz then consented and blood was drawn.
- Kurtz was charged with multiple DUI offenses based in part on the blood test results.
- Kurtz moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing his consent was coerced by the threat of enhanced penalties (relying on Birchfield v. North Dakota).
- The suppression court granted the motion, finding Kurtz’s consent involuntary because he was under arrest and had been read the DL-26 language threatening enhanced penalties; the Commonwealth appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, rejecting the Commonwealth’s request to apply a good-faith exception to preserve the blood evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Kurtz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply where officers relied on pre-Birchfield precedent and read DL-26 warnings | Good-faith exception should apply because officers reasonably followed then-valid statute/caselaw; suppression would not deter misconduct | Good-faith exception is inconsistent with PA Const. Art. I, §8 and Pennsylvania precedent (Edmunds) rejecting such an exception | Held: No good-faith exception. Pennsylvania’s Article I, §8 and Edmunds bar creating the exception; privacy interests in blood draws weigh against it |
| Whether Kurtz’s consent to the blood draw was voluntary despite DL-26 warnings | Consent was valid under the totality of circumstances (knowledge of right to refuse, cooperation, prior DUI experience) | Consent was involuntary because Kurtz was under arrest, not free to leave, and was warned of enhanced penalties—creating coercion per Birchfield/Ennels | Held: Consent involuntary. Suppression of blood-test results affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing a warrantless blood test; blood draws implicate substantial privacy interests)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood tests are searches involving intrusion beyond the body’s surface)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (Pennsylvania declined to adopt a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule under Article I, §8)
- Commonwealth v. Ennels, 167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017) (suppression affirmed where DL-26 warning of enhanced penalties rendered consent involuntary under Birchfield)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (implied-consent scheme unconstitutional to the extent it threatened enhanced criminal penalties for refusing blood tests)