Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog
In Pennsylvania DUI cases, constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure play a critical role when chemical testing is involved. However, when blood is drawn by medical personnel for treatment rather than at the direction of law enforcement, Fourth Amendment protections may not apply. A recent Pennsylvania decision illustrates this distinction and explains how hospital-initiated medical testing can be used as evidence in DUI prosecutions. If you are facing DUI charges, a knowledgeable Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney can help you challenge any violations of your constitutional rights.
History of the Case
It is reported that police and emergency medical personnel responded to a one-vehicle rollover crash, where the defendant’s car was discovered upside down on its roof. Emergency responders observed that the defendant had not been wearing a seatbelt and exhibited visible injuries. Due to concerns about possible internal trauma, EMS recommended that the defendant be transported to a hospital. The defendant initially refused but later agreed to go. The responding officer did not direct or participate in the decision to transport the defendant.
It is further alleged that hospital staff, upon evaluating the defendant, restrained and sedated him before conducting a blood draw. At no point did the defendant provide consent for the draw. The officer at the scene was told by EMS personnel that they detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant. The officer later obtained a search warrant for the results of the blood test that had already been conducted by the hospital. The defendant moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the hospital staff were acting as agents of the state and that the blood draw violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Grounds for Suppressing Results of Chemical Testing
The trial court conducted a hearing and found that the blood draw was initiated solely for medical treatment and not at the direction of the police. Although the defendant highlighted several pieces of evidence suggesting police involvement, including testimony that officers intended to obtain a warrant and may have communicated that to EMS, the court concluded that the actual draw occurred independently of police control. The court credited the officer’s testimony that he did not direct the hospital to collect a sample, and noted that medical staff typically draw blood following serious crashes for diagnostic purposes.
The trial court determined that the officer’s later request for the test results, via a valid search warrant, was a separate event and did not retroactively transform the hospital’s conduct into state action. The defendant appealed, asserting that the blood draw was a state-initiated seizure unsupported by consent, a warrant, or exigent circumstances.
The court reviewed the trial court’s factual findings under a deferential standard, considering only the Commonwealth’s evidence and any defense evidence that was uncontradicted. The court explained that, under well-established Pennsylvania precedent, the critical legal issue was whether the hospital staff acted at the behest of law enforcement or independently for medical purposes. The court also reiterated that when hospital personnel draw blood on their own initiative, such action is considered private and does not trigger constitutional protections.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the record supported the trial court’s findings. The officer explicitly testified that he lacked the authority to direct hospital staff to draw blood and had been ignored in the past when making similar requests. Hospital protocol, according to testimony, called for blood draws following traumatic motor vehicle accidents like the one at issue. As the trial court found that the draw was performed for legitimate medical reasons without police instruction, the appellate court ruled that there was no constitutional violation and no basis for suppression. Accordingly, the judgment of sentence, including the DUI conviction, was affirmed.
Talk to a Skilled Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney Today
DUI cases involving warrantless blood draws raise complex issues of constitutional law and medical privacy. If you have been arrested for DUI and believe your rights were violated during testing or evidence collection, it is essential to speak with a defense lawyer immediately. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is a skilled Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney with experience challenging improper police conduct and unlawful evidence collection. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact Mr. Cooper through the online form or call (215) 542-0800.