In Pennsylvania, the implied consent law dictates that people suspected of driving while intoxicated must submit to a breath test or face penalties. The police must obtain a DUI suspect’s informed consent prior to administering a blood test, however. If they fail to obtain knowing consent, the results of such tests may be deemed inadmissible. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed the factors evaluated in determining if consent was given freely and knowingly in a case in which it ultimately affirmed the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is smart to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to determine your options for pursuing a favorable outcome.
Factual Setting and Procedural History
It is reported that in May 2020, a state trooper observed a collision involving the defendant’s vehicle and another, resulting in the death of the other driver. The trooper noticed that the defendant seemed disoriented and displayed signs of possible drug use but did not conduct field sobriety tests. Despite being told he was not under arrest, the defendant consented to a blood draw at the hospital. The blood test revealed the presence of methamphetamine and Xanax.
Allegedly, the defendant filed a suppression motion on September 29, 2022, arguing that the blood draw was conducted without a warrant or valid consent. The trial court held a suppression hearing on March 7, 2023, and subsequently denied the motion. After a stipulated waiver trial, the court convicted the defendant and sentenced him on November 17, 2023. The defendant filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
Grounds for Suppressing Evidence
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion. The key issue was whether the defendant’s consent to the blood test was voluntary despite the lack of a warrant. The court evaluated whether the totality of the circumstances indicated that the defendant’s consent was given freely and without coercion.
The trial court found that the defendant was repeatedly informed that he was not under arrest and was not subjected to coercive tactics. The court noted that although the DL-26B form, which details the right to refuse testing, was read to the defendant, he was clearly informed of his non-arrest status prior to giving consent.
The court distinguished the case from precedents where consent was deemed involuntary due to misleading or coercive circumstances. The court ultimately found that the failure to inform the defendant of potential consequences explicitly did not alone render his consent involuntary under the totality of circumstances.
Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the consent was voluntarily given and the suppression motion was properly denied.
Talk to a Trusted Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is essential to understand your rights and potential defenses, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is a trusted Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer who can evaluate your case and assist you in seeking the best outcome available. You can reach him to arrange a free and private meeting by filling out the online form or calling (215) 542-0800.