Garlick v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030

Licensee (Robert Garlick) was at the scene of a single-vehicle crash, exhibited signs of intoxication, and refused a preliminary breath test and a requested blood test.
Trooper arrested Licensee for suspected DUI, transported him to the barracks, and read DOT Form DL-26B requesting a blood test.
Trooper did not warn Licensee (as Section 1547(b)(2)(ii) then required) that refusal to submit to a blood test would subject him to enhanced criminal penalties under Section 3804(c).
Licensee refused the blood test; DOT suspended his driving privilege for one year under the Implied Consent Law.
Licensee appealed to common pleas arguing the statutory warning was required; common pleas upheld the suspension.
Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that post-Birchfield the enhanced-criminal-penalty consequence for refusing blood testing was unenforceable, so omission of that warning did not invalidate the civil suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether license suspension must be reversed because officer failed to warn of enhanced criminal penalties for refusing blood test (per then-existing §1547(b)(2)(ii)).	Garlick: statutory warning was mandatory; absence of that warning voids the suspension.	DOT: Birchfield and subsequent law rendered criminal penalty as applied to blood tests unenforceable; suspension valid because licensee was warned of civil suspension.	Court: Held for DOT — omission of unenforceable criminal-penalty warning did not defeat civil suspension.
Whether Birchfield applies to civil implied-consent suspension proceedings.	Garlick: Birchfield should not affect civil suspensions; statutory warning remains binding.	DOT: Birchfield limits criminal penalties for blood refusal; civil consequences remain and DL-26B accurately warned of civil suspension.	Court: Birchfield is relevant to assess which consequences actually exist; civil suspension remains valid despite Birchfield.
Whether officers must read a presently-unenforceable criminal-penalty warning (even if statute still says so).	Garlick: Officers must follow the statute as written until amended.	DOT: Requiring officers to give an inaccurate/unenforceable warning would be coercive and could harm criminal prosecutions; officers may omit it.	Court: Officers need not give a warning that describes a consequence that is constitutionally unenforceable; accurate warning of existing civil penalty suffices.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible but warrant required for blood tests; states cannot criminalize refusal of blood test absent warrant)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (warning about criminal penalties for blood-test refusal is inaccurate post-Birchfield; suppression/remedy in criminal context)
Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 635 (Pa. Super. 2017) (refusal to submit to blood test does not subject defendant to enhanced criminal penalties without warrant)
Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Weaver, 912 A.2d 259 (Pa. 2006) (statutory warning language was mandatory under §1547(b)(2)(ii))
Boseman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Birchfield does not automatically invalidate civil license suspensions; Birchfield addresses criminal statutes that make refusal a crime)
Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (severability principle: invalid statutory provision may be severed from remainder of statute)
Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (purpose of implied-consent warnings is to ensure a knowing, conscious waiver/refusal)
Martinovic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (elements DOT must prove to sustain suspension)