Fetherman v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
167 A.3d 846
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- In May 2015 Trooper Miller arrested Daniel Fetherman for DUI and requested a blood test; Fetherman asked for a warrant and the officer recorded a refusal on the DL-26 form.
- On June 2, 2015 DOT mailed an 18-month administrative suspension under 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547 for refusal; the notice warned of a 30-day appeal deadline.
- After a February 2016 conviction for driving under the influence, DOT mailed a one-year suspension under 75 Pa. C.S. § 1543 on April 21, 2016 (also with a 30-day appeal period).
- Fetherman filed a single pro se appeal on August 2, 2016, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23, 2016 decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota as newly controlling authority.
- The trial court denied the untimely appeal and rejected the argument that Birchfield created a breakdown in administrative process or that Birchfield invalidated civil implied-consent suspensions; Fetherman appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: Fetherman’s appeals were untimely, he failed to show extraordinary circumstances for nunc pro tunc relief, Birchfield does not disturb civil implied-consent suspensions, and PCRA relief was inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Fetherman’s Argument | DOT’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should allow an untimely appeal nunc pro tunc based on Birchfield | Birchfield announced a constitutional right protecting refusal of warrantless blood tests and therefore justifies nunc pro tunc relief and retroactive relief | Appeals were untimely; no fraud or administrative breakdown; Birchfield addresses criminal penalties, not civil suspensions; PCRA inapplicable | Denied — nunc pro tunc relief not warranted; appeal untimely and court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Birchfield invalidates Pennsylvania’s implied-consent civil license suspensions | Birchfield’s Fourth Amendment holding protects refusal and defeats the § 1547 suspension imposed for refusal | Birchfield expressly left civil implied-consent penalties intact; DL-26 and civil suspensions are administrative, not criminal | Denied — Birchfield does not invalidate civil implied-consent suspensions |
| Whether Fetherman may invoke PCRA retroactivity to justify relief | Birchfield is a new constitutional rule that should apply retroactively under 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b)(iii) | PCRA applies only to criminal convictions and those currently serving sentence; license suspensions are civil and Fetherman was not serving a sentence so PCRA is inapplicable | Denied — PCRA relief unavailable; eligibility prerequisites not met |
| Whether Fetherman preserved the Fourth Amendment claim by timely raising it | He raised the warrant argument at arrest and relied on Birchfield once decided | He failed to timely appeal the suspension within 30 days, so no pending appeal existed when Birchfield issued | Denied — preservation insufficient because there was no timely appeal pending and he did not act with required diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (held criminalizing refusal of warrantless blood tests after DUI arrest violates the Fourth Amendment; did not invalidate civil implied-consent penalties)
- Williamson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 129 A.3d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (appeals filed after 30-day notice period are untimely and deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Bye v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 607 A.2d 325 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (limitations on nunc pro tunc appeals where delay not due to fraud or administrative breakdown)
- O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (license-suspension proceedings under implied-consent statutory scheme are civil)
- Bashore v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 27 A.3d 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (refusal-based license suspensions are administrative and separate from criminal DUI proceedings)
- Boseman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Birchfield does not invalidate civil implied-consent suspensions)
- Stock v. Commonwealth, 679 A.2d 760 (Pa. 1996) (standards for nunc pro tunc relief in civil cases)