100 A.3d 768
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Ssprecher appeals a one-year suspension of driving privileges imposed for refusing a blood test under Pennsylvania's implied consent law.
- On April 6, 2013, Officer Rood stopped Sprecher for weaving; he detected alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and Sprecher admitted drinking.
- Preliminary testing failed due to insufficient air; field sobriety tests indicated intoxication; Sprecher was arrested for DUI and taken to the county jail.
- At the jail, officer warned about chemical testing on Form DL-26; Sprecher refused a blood test and refused to sign the form; the Department suspended her license.
- At a de novo hearing, Sprecher claimed knee and bronchial problems and fear of needles; the trial court found her testimony not credible and sustained the suspension.
- The court rejected the McNeely-based constitutional challenge and affirmed that the implied consent law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does McNeely invalidate the implied consent law? | Ssprecher argues McNeely applies and requires suppression. | Department argues McNeely does not control license-suspension proceedings. | McNeely not applicable; implied consent constitutional. |
| Did the Department prove the four statutory elements in a license-suspension appeal? | Ssprecher contends the Department failed to show knowingly refused or capability to test. | Department established arrest on reasonable grounds, request to test, refusal, and warning of suspension. | Yes; Department met its burden, so the suspension stands. |
| Is the exclusionary rule applicable to implied consent in this civil license case? | Ssprecher seeks exclusion of testing results as fruit of an illegal arrest. | Implied consent scheme does not graft the exclusionary rule onto testing results. | Exclusionary rule not engrafted; results may be admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (withdraws per se exigency rule for blood draws; totality-of-circumstances standard)
- D.E.P. v. Wysocki, 535 A.2d 77 (Pa. 1987) (exclusionary rule not automatically applied to implied consent)
- Commonwealth v. Stair, 699 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (implied consent prerequisites and civil privilege concept)
- Kostyk v. Dep’t of Transp., 570 A.2d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (no constitutional right to refuse implied testing; test requirement)
- Campbell v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 86 A.3d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (burden-shifting framework in implied consent appeals)
- Yourick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (knowingly and consciously refused or physical incapacity standard)