No warrant required for blood test from driver suspected of DUI who is not under arrest and rendered unconscious in accident
NOTE – THE MARCH CASE HAS SINCE BEEN OVERRULED BY THE PA SUPREME COURT IN COMMONWEALTH V. MYERS, 7 EAP 2016 (JULY 19, 2017), (Holding that because Myers was pharmacologically rendered unconscious by medical personnel prior to the time the Officer read O’Connell warnings to his unresponsive arrestee, no credible assertion can be made that Myers was provided with the opportunity to make a “knowing and conscious choice” regarding whether to undergo chemical testing or to exercise his right of refusal. Suppression was therefore granted where no warrant was obtained, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied.)
The PA Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. March, No. 530 MDA 2016 (January 26, 2017), holding that the trial court erred in suppressing the results of March’s blood test where March was involved in a motor vehicle accident; unconscious at the scene; required immediate medical treatment; was not under arrest; and, remained unconscious at the hospital when the blood tests was administered at the request of police. (Note – police had probable cause to believe March was under the influence of a controlled substance.)
March was involved in a motor vehicle accident and removed, unconscious, from the scene by ambulance for emergency medical treatment. Police developed probable cause to believe that March was operating his vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance but did not place March under arrest as he had already been taken to the hospital. Police requested a sample of March’s blood at the hospital. from hospital personnel.
The Superior Court noted that the facts at hand implicated PA’s Implied Consent Law as well as the statute pertaining to “Reports by emergency personnel” that requires an emergency room physician or his designee to promptly take blood samples from anyone requiring medical attention who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle involved in an accident.
In summarizing those laws, the Superior Court stated that the “pertinent law tell us that if a driver is involved in a motor vehicle accident, is unconscious, and requires immediate hospital medical treatment, and the police have probable cause to believe the motorist was DUI, then the police can request and receive blood test results from hospital personnel without a warrant.” The Superior Court further noted that a driver’s right to refuse a blood test under the Implied Consent statute is only triggered when that person is under arrest.
Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that since March was involved in a motor vehicle accident and removed, unconscious, from the scene by ambulance for emergency medical treatment, the “Reports by emergency personnel” statute was triggered. And, since March was not under arrest when blood was drawn, he had no right to refuse the blood test under Pennsylvania’s Implied Consent Statute.
Lastly, given the automobile accident and the probable cause to suspect DUI, the police had statutory authority to request and receive blood test results from hospital personnel without a warrant.
CASLE LINK: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S72006-16o%20-%2010296816015851505.pdf?cb=1
