172 A.3d 621
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On May 5, 2016 Detective Britton questioned Updike after seeing an open beer can; Updike admitted using heroin earlier that day and was taken to a hospital.
- Updike was read the DL-26 implied-consent form (which warned of increased penalties for refusing a blood draw) and consented; the blood test showed controlled substances/metabolites.
- Commonwealth charged Updike with multiple DUI—controlled substance counts; Updike moved to suppress the blood evidence under the Fourth Amendment only.
- While the case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield, holding warrantless blood draws generally require a warrant, rendering parts of DL-26 legally incorrect.
- The trial court suppressed the blood evidence under the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article I, §8); Commonwealth appealed arguing the federal good-faith exception (Davis/Krull/Leon) applies because Updike raised only a federal claim.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding Updike waived state-constitutional suppression, and evidence drawn before June 23, 2016 is admissible under the federal good-faith exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by applying Pa. Const. art. I §8 when defendant preserved only a Fourth Amendment claim | Commonwealth: trial court erred; Updike implicitly waived state claim by pleading only federal claim | Updike: suppression required (trial court applied state law) | Court: Updike waived state-constitutional claim; trial court erred to apply Article I §8 sua sponte |
| Whether blood evidence is admissible under the federal good-faith exception when based on DL-26 warnings later invalidated by Birchfield | Commonwealth: good-faith exception applies to evidence obtained relying on binding law/statute later invalidated | Updike: Birchfield renders DL-26 coercive/invalid, requiring suppression under Fourth Amendment | Court: Good-faith exception applies to federal Fourth Amendment claim; evidence admissible |
| Whether officer had probable cause/reasonable suspicion for DUI-controlled-substance arrest | Commonwealth: officer had probable cause based on driving and Updike’s admission of heroin use | Updike: officer lacked probable cause/reasonable suspicion | Court: Probable cause existed (driving + admission) |
| Whether defendant’s inculpatory statements negate coercion from DL-26 warnings | Commonwealth: admissions show willingness to disclose use, undermining coercion claim | Updike: warnings could have coerced consent despite admissions | Court: Court did not need to resolve voluntariness because good-faith exception made evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (applying good-faith exception where officers relied on binding appellate precedent)
- Krull v. United States, 480 U.S. 340 (good-faith exception where officers relied on statute later held unconstitutional)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (breath permissible without warrant; blood generally requires warrant)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (exigent exception to warrant requirement rarely applies in DUI contexts)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (original articulation of the good-faith exception)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (blood draws are searches under the Fourth Amendment)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (blood testing is a search implicating Fourth Amendment protections)
- Commonwealth v. Frederick, 124 A.3d 748 (Pa. law: no good-faith exception under Article I, §8)