Commonwealth v. Torres
176 A.3d 292
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On March 23, 2015, Torres was stopped for a traffic violation; officer smelled marijuana and observed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Torres was arrested for DUI and taken to police headquarters for testing.
- At headquarters, Officer Shead read and had Torres sign the DL-26 (O’Connell) implied-consent warnings, which included language about enhanced criminal penalties for refusing a chemical (blood) test.
- Torres consented to a warrantless blood draw; he was later convicted in Municipal Court of two DUI counts and sentenced to 72 hours–6 months. He appealed for a trial de novo in Common Pleas.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota (holding warrantless blood draws unconstitutional absent a warrant or consent not coerced), Torres filed a supplemental motion to suppress, arguing his consent was coerced by the DL-26 penalty language.
- The Common Pleas court granted suppression, concluding Birchfield changed the law and that Torres’s consent was involuntary because he was told refusal carried enhanced criminal penalties; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Torres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torres waived the right to raise a Birchfield-based suppression claim at the trial de novo | Torres waived because he did not raise coercion in Municipal Court; local rule bars relitigation of suppression issues | Rule 581(B) and interests-of-justice exception allow the new suppression claim because Birchfield created an intervening change in law and prior challenge would have been futile | Trial court properly heard the motion under the interests-of-justice exception; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Torres’s consent to the warrantless blood draw was voluntary | Birchfield does not create a per se rule that implied-consent warnings are coercive; consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances | Consent was involuntary because the DL-26 warnings threatened criminal penalties for refusal, and Birchfield renders such penalties unenforceable and coercive | Consent was involuntary as a matter of law under Birchfield; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood draws unlawful absent a warrant or valid noncoerced consent; implied-consent criminal penalties cannot be used to compel blood tests)
- Commonwealth v. Ennels, 167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017) (applied Birchfield to invalidate consent given after officer warned of enhanced criminal penalties)
- Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp. v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (DL-26 implied-consent notice framework)