99 A.3d 583
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- On March 1, 2013, Trooper Bowes stopped Licensee after observing erratic driving and smelled alcohol; a bottle of vodka was in the vehicle and Licensee performed poorly on field sobriety tests.
- Licensee refused a preliminary breath test, was arrested for DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802) and transported to a hospital for a blood test.
- At the hospital Trooper Bowes read the Implied Consent form (DL-26); Licensee signed the form but refused the blood draw, and the hospital did not draw blood.
- DOT suspended Licensee’s driving privilege for one year under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1) for refusing chemical testing; Licensee appealed to the trial court, which dismissed the appeal after a de novo hearing.
- Licensee appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing the Implied Consent suspension violated his Fourth Amendment rights because Missouri v. McNeely requires exigent circumstances for warrantless nonconsensual blood draws.
Issues
| Issue | Licensee's Argument | DOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw (or refusal sanction) violates the Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances | McNeely requires exigency; Implied Consent is unconstitutional as applied because Licensee could not be compelled without a warrant | McNeely concerns suppression of involuntary blood draws in criminal prosecutions; this case involves civil administrative consequences for refusal under the Implied Consent Law | The court held McNeely does not control; the suspension is a civil consequence and Licensee has no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under §1547(b) |
| Whether the Implied Consent Law is unconstitutional as applied to civil license suspensions | Section 1547 cannot be used to force a bodily search absent exigency | Driving is a privilege; Implied Consent conditions continued driving privileges on submitting to testing, so civil sanctions for refusal are permissible | The court held drivers have no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing for purposes of license retention; the statute is constitutionally applied in this civil context |
| Whether enhanced criminal penalties for refusal (§3804(c)) raise the same constitutional issue before this court | Licensee argued enhanced criminal punishments make the statute coercive and unconstitutional | DOT noted criminal penalties are not at issue in this administrative appeal | The court declined to consider §3804(c) because enhanced criminal punishment was not before it; only civil license consequences were at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (case-by-case exigency analysis for warrantless nonconsensual blood draws)
- Commonwealth v. Stair, 699 A.2d 1250 (Pa. 1997) (drivers have no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under Implied Consent)
- Vora v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 79 A.3d 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (distinguishing criminal suppression issues from administrative license-suspension appeals)