Commonwealth v. Smith
177 A.3d 915
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In the early morning of Aug. 6, 2016, Trooper Hogue observed Brittany Smith drive briefly in the center of a two‑way, lined road, forcing the trooper to brake to avoid collision; the trooper followed and stopped Smith after she turned into a driveway.
- On contact the trooper detected alcohol odor, bloodshot eyes, an alcoholic drink in the vehicle, and Smith was uncooperative; she was arrested for suspected DUI.
- At the hospital the trooper read a DL‑26 form advising that refusal to submit to testing would result in a license suspension; Smith signed the form and consented to blood draw.
- Blood test showed BAC of .274. Smith was charged with DUI (including highest‑rate offense) and related vehicle code violations.
- Smith moved to suppress (1) the vehicle seizure/stop as lacking reasonable suspicion/probable cause and (2) results of the warrantless blood test under Birchfield; the trial court denied suppression.
- After a stipulated bench trial the court convicted Smith and sentenced her; Smith appealed, challenging the stop and the voluntariness/legality of the warrantless blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Smith: stop unlawful; no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle | Commonwealth: trooper observed dangerous driving (wide turn, prolonged travel in center lane) and reasonable suspicion of DUI justified investigatory stop | Stop was lawful; trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop for suspected DUI |
| Warrant requirement for blood draw | Smith: warrantless blood seizure violated Birchfield and her consent was not voluntary because statutory penalty scheme still allowed enhanced sanctions for refusal | Commonwealth: Smith consented; trooper only advised of license suspension (DL‑26); Birchfield inapplicable because Smith was not told refusal carried criminal penalties | Court denied suppression; consent held voluntary and Birchfield inapplicable given the advisory actually given |
| Effect of pre‑Birchfield statutory scheme on voluntariness | Smith (on appeal): existence of statutory enhancement vitiated voluntariness; Smith was presumptively aware due to prior DUI | Commonwealth: argument not raised below; record shows no warning of criminal penalties | Argument waived for failure to raise in lower court; not reviewed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 1535 (U.S. 2016) (States may not criminally penalize refusal of warrantless blood tests; consent coerced if driver told refusal is a crime)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Birchfield requires reevaluation of consent when police warn of criminal penalties for refusal)
- Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (distinguishes when reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause is required for vehicle stops; DUI investigatory stops permitted on reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (analyzes nature of violation to determine whether stop needs probable cause or only reasonable suspicion; DUI stops often investigatory)
- Commonwealth v. Sands, 887 A.2d 261 (Pa. Super. 2005) (officer justified in stopping vehicle after observing lane drifts indicative of intoxication)
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings; appellate scope limited to suppression hearing record)