Commonwealth v. Myers
118 A.3d 1122
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On December 29, 2012, Officer Bragg arrested Myers for DUI after observing a maroon SUV in the running lane and Myers staggering toward the officer.
- Myers was transported to Einstein Hospital for medical clearance; he was unconscious after receiving Haldol later that day.
- At 5:01 p.m., a warrantless blood draw was performed while Myers was unconscious, without prior consent or a warrant.
- The blood was placed in a drug scan kit and stored; Myers did not sign informed consent warnings due to unconsciousness.
- Municipal Court suppressed the blood draw as warrantless and unconstrained by exigent circumstances; Commonwealth appealed to the Common Pleas Court.
- The Commonwealth argued McNeely creates a per se exigency or relied on implied-consent provisions to justify the blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw is permissible when there's probable cause for DUI and McNeely applies | Myers relied on McNeely and implied-consent to justify warrantless draw. | McNeely requires case-by-case analysis; lack of exigency and consent issues require a warrant. | McNeely governs; warrant was required to draw Myers' blood. |
| Whether Pennsylvania implied consent law permits involuntary blood testing where the defendant is unconscious | Statutory consent can justify testing despite lack of conscious consent. | Implied consent cannot override the basic Fourth Amendment warrant requirement when no timely consent exists. | Implied consent does not authorize a warrantless draw when the subject is unconscious and cannot consent. |
| How Kohl and Keller relate to the case when there is probable cause and lack of consent | Kohl/Keller support implied-consent-based warrants without express consent. | Kohl/Keller are distinguishable and do not control when the defendant is unconscious and no timely warrant sought. | Kohl and Keller are distinguishable; they do not control; McNeely governs here. |
| Whether the Commonwealth adequately justified the failure to obtain a warrant before the 5:01 p.m. draw | Warrants could have been sought during transport; exigent circumstances existed. | No documented exigency; pursuit of a warrant was feasible; McNeely requires case-by-case analysis. | Commonwealth failed to justify; the blood draw was unlawful without a warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (drunk-driving warrantless blood draws require case-specific exigency, not per se rule)
- Commonwealth v. Eisenhart, 611 A.2d 681 (Pa. 1992) (driver may refuse testing under implied consent; refusal can affect admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Kohl, 615 A.2d 308 (Pa. 1992) (unconscious defendant and blood draw previously tied to §1547(a)(2); later developments focus on consent)
- Commonwealth v. Keller, 823 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2003) (implied consent interplay with related statutes; distinguishable from current facts)
- O'Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (implied-consent warnings and refusal framework relevance to blood tests)