228 A.3d 520
Pa.2020Background:
- On Sept. 4, 2015 a pickup struck a bicyclist in Philadelphia; police arrived after a delay and found Timothy Trahey exhibiting signs of intoxication and arrested him for DUI.
- AID investigators transported Trahey to the Police Detention Unit and, despite an Intoxilyzer breath machine being present, elected to obtain a blood sample rather than a breath test; no search warrant was sought.
- Trahey’s blood was drawn about 11:20 p.m., roughly 125 minutes after the reported collision; he had been advised under Pennsylvania’s implied-consent warnings and verbally agreed to testing but did not check the blood box on the form.
- After Birchfield (deciding breath tests may be taken incident to arrest but blood tests generally require a warrant) Trahey moved to suppress the blood-result; the trial court granted suppression, finding no exigency to excuse the lack of a warrant.
- The Superior Court reversed, reasoning that objective circumstances (delayed dispatch, AID staffing, and the time-consuming warrant process) created exigent circumstances; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Superior Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Trahey (Plaintiff) | Commonwealth (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | Argued evidence of exigency was speculative; breath test was available and adequate; police-created delays negate exigency | Argued delays were outside officers’ control, two-hour BAC window threatened destruction of alcohol evidence, warrant process could take too long | Exigency not established here: breath test available (Birchfield); McNeely rejects per se exigency based on alcohol dissipation; Mitchell limited to unconscious drivers |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (rejects per se exigency for warrantless blood draws; exigency is case-specific under totality of circumstances)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (breath tests may be administered incident to arrest; blood tests are more intrusive and generally require a warrant)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) (plurality) (narrow rule permitting warrantless blood draws when driver is unconscious and breath testing is impossible)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld where emergency circumstances left no time to obtain warrant)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (breath and blood tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment)