233 A.3d 784
Pa.2020Background
- In December 2014 Wolfel struck two pedestrians while driving; one died. She was arrested for suspected DUI and taken to a health center for a blood draw.
- Prior to the draw police warned Wolfel that refusal would lead to enhanced criminal penalties under Pennsylvania’s Implied Consent Law; she consented and her BAC was .178.
- After the Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota (June 2016), Wolfel moved to suppress the blood-test results under Birchfield; the suppression court granted suppression and cited Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reversed sua sponte, finding Wolfel had waived any state-constitutional claim by failing to invoke Article I, Section 8 below and applied the federal good-faith exception.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held the Superior Court’s sua sponte waiver ruling against Wolfel was unsustainable because the Commonwealth failed to preserve its challenge to the trial court’s reliance on the state constitution; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to a warrantless blood draw given after warnings of enhanced penalties is invalid under Birchfield | Wolfel: Birchfield requires suppression of blood obtained after coercive statutory warnings | Commonwealth: Warnings were legally correct at the time; Birchfield need not apply retroactively; alternatively, good-faith exception saves the evidence | Court did not decide the merits; recognized Birchfield as federal baseline and remanded for Superior Court to consider merits because waiver finding was improper |
| Whether the Commonwealth may invoke a good-faith exception to avoid suppression under Pennsylvania law | Wolfel: Under Commonwealth v. Edmunds, PA’s exclusionary rule does not permit a good-faith exception | Commonwealth: Treat issue under Fourth Amendment/federal law and apply federal good-faith doctrines; not asking to overrule Edmunds | Court did not resolve conflict; held Commonwealth waived its challenge to the trial court’s Article I, §8 invocation by failing to press the issue in Superior Court; remand to consider alternative resolutions including good-faith claims |
| Whether Wolfel waived an Article I, §8 claim by failing to raise it | Wolfel: Suppression court invoked Article I, §8 and the claim was properly before the court | Commonwealth: Issues not raised below are waived on appeal | Commonwealth waived its contention that Wolfel failed to invoke Article I, §8 because it did not challenge the trial court’s reliance on the state constitution in the intermediate court; Superior Court’s sua sponte waiver reversal was unsustainable |
| Retroactivity of Birchfield to pre‑decision conduct | Wolfel: Suppression court properly applied Birchfield post-decision to pre-trial, pre-decision draws | Commonwealth: Argued Birchfield should not be applied retroactively (later shifted emphasis) | Court declined to resolve retroactivity; treated Birchfield as setting a federal minimum and remanded for appropriate analysis now that waiver ruling is vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding that consent to a warrantless blood test is invalid when induced by threat of criminal penalty for refusal)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (Pennsylvania rejected a good-faith exception to the state‑constitutional exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (federal good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (federal limitations on exclusion where officers reasonably rely on statute)
- Commonwealth v. Hays, 218 A.3d 1260 (Pa. 2019) (addressing preservation of Birchfield‑related claims)
- In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 190 A.3d 560 (Pa. 2018) (federal constitutional protections establish a floor for state constitutional protections)