DUI Traffic Stop Based on "Coincidence" Warrant Requirement for Blood Alcohol Testing

Commonwealth v. Haines, PICS Case No. 17-1132 (Pa. Super. June 30, 2017) Moulton, J. (20 pages).

Police had reasonable suspicion to investigate, pursuant to a potential violation of the statutory duty to report a crashed vehicle, whether the operator of that vehicle was in a second vehicle stopped by police, since the second vehicle stopped on the same stretch of deserted roadway long enough to pick someone up, and was registered to an individual sharing the same last name as the operator of the crashed vehicle. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Douglas Haines appealed from the judgment of sentence following his bench trial conviction for DUI. Appellant was arrested following an incident in which Pennsylvania State Police troopers received a call of a possible vehicular accident. Troopers found a vehicle that had run off the road into a wooded area, but did not find anyone in or near the vehicle. The vehicle's registration belonged to appellant. While waiting for a tow truck, troopers observed a vehicle stop approximately half a mile behind them on the road for 10 or 15 second, then continue on. The second vehicle came back registered to a Samuel Haines. Upon suspicion that the second vehicle had stopped to pick up the driver of the crashed vehicle, troopers effected a stop, discovering a female driver and appellant in the passenger seat. Appellant was asked to exit the vehicle, and failed a roadside sobriety test. Troopers arrested appellant, and read him Implied Consent and O'Connell warnings, and Mirandized him. Appellant admitted to being the operator of the crashed vehicle, and claimed that he crashed after swerving to avoid a deer. Appellant was subjected to a blood alcohol test, which determined that appellant had a BAC of .244.

In the trial court, appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, arguing that because the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160, held that a warrant was required to obtain a blood alcohol test, no charges were viable and judgment should have been arrested. The trial court denied appellant's motion and sentenced appellant to 90 days to 18 months incarceration, but permitted appellant to serve the remaining 80 days of his minimum sentence on house arrest.

On appeal, appellant challenged both the validity of the stop of the second vehicle, and the trial court's refusal to arrest judgment based upon Birchfield. As to his first issue, appellant argued that troopers required probable cause to justify the stop. The court disagreed, first noting that probable cause was only required to effect a traffic stop where the stop could not serve an investigatory purpose relevant to a suspected violation. The court held that troopers only needed reasonable suspicion to stop the second vehicle if they reasonably believed that it contained evidence relevant to the violation at issue.