D.S. Richardson v. Bureau of Driver Licensing
681 C.D. 2018
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 28, 2019Background
- Licensee (David S. Richardson) was arrested May 28, 2017 on suspicion of DUI; parties stipulated the officer had reasonable grounds to request chemical testing.
- Licensee refused a blood test; officer read the DL-26B implied-consent form.
- The Department suspended Licensee’s operating privilege for one year under 75 Pa.C.S. §1547(b)(1)(i); Licensee appealed to the trial court.
- Licensee argued the suspension was invalid because (1) the officer lacked reasonable grounds and (2) the warnings did not advise that refusal would trigger enhanced criminal penalties under former §1547(b)(2)(ii).
- U.S. Supreme Court’s Birchfield decision (2016) held warrantless blood draws unconstitutional and that criminal penalties cannot be imposed for refusing blood without a warrant; Pennsylvania courts and the Department thereafter treated the enhanced-penalty language as unenforceable for blood tests.
- The trial court dismissed Licensee’s appeal and reinstated the suspension; this Court affirmed, relying on Garlick and related precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to warn of enhanced criminal penalties for refusing a blood test invalidates a license suspension | Richardson: warning was deficient because it did not include enhanced-penalty warning required by former §1547(b)(2)(ii) | DOT: Birchfield and subsequent state cases rendered enhanced-penalty warning unenforceable for blood tests; suspension valid | Court held waiver/enforcement of enhanced penalties for blood refusal was foreclosed by Birchfield; absence of that warning did not invalidate the suspension |
| Whether former §1547(b)(2)(ii) (enhanced penalties for refusal) remained enforceable at time of arrest despite Birchfield | Richardson: statute remained on the books and had to be applied in full | DOT: Birchfield made application to blood testing unenforceable; the provision is severable from the remainder of §1547 | Court followed Garlick: Birchfield rendered the enhanced-penalty provision unenforceable as applied to blood tests and that provision is severable |
| Whether §1547(b)(2)(ii) is severable from the Vehicle Code so the remainder survives | Richardson: argued nonseverability would require statute to be applied as written | DOT: relied on statutory severability doctrine and precedent | Court held the enhanced-penalty clause is severable; remainder of §1547 remains operative |
| Whether officer had reasonable grounds to request testing (affecting legality of suspension) | Richardson: asserted officer lacked reasonable grounds (one ground for appeal) | DOT: parties stipulated officer had reasonable grounds; suspension based on refusal remains authorized | Court relied on stipulation and did not find error; suspension upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood tests unconstitutional; criminal penalties for refusal cannot be imposed without a warrant)
- Garlick v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (applied Birchfield, held enhanced-penalty provision unenforceable for blood tests and severable)
- Negovan v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 172 A.3d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (related precedent addressing implied-consent/suspension issues)
- Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 635 (Pa. Super. 2017) (absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, refusal to give blood does not trigger enhanced statutory penalties)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (statutory severability principle supporting severance of invalid provisions)