The standard used for administering blood tests to suspected drunken drivers is the same one that should be applied to those suspected of being impaired by drugs, the Pennsylvania Superior Court said, ruling that blood can't be taken without a warrant or consent.
A three-judge panel in Commonwealth v. Ennels held that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota applied in the case of a Reading man who was stopped after allegedly leaving the scene of an accident.
Berks County prosecutors appealed a lower court ruling suppressing the results of John Ennels' warrantless blood test, which was taken after he was brought in by Reading police. They claimed the Supreme Court's holding in Birchfield didn't apply for drug-related DUIs.
"No matter the substance suspected of affecting a particular DUI arrestee, Birchfield requires that a blood test be authorized either by a warrant (or case-specific exigency), or by individual consent not based on the pain of criminal consequences," Superior Court Judge H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. wrote in the court's opinion.
Ennels' public defender, Rachel Silver, did not return a call seeking comment.
Neither did Berks County Assistant District Attorney Alisa Hobart.
The court held that the police have to obtain a warrant or, if pressed for time, seek a blood test under the "exigency exception" to the warrant requirement. Consent is applicable only if based on the prospect of civil and evidentiary reasons, and not criminal penalties, the court said.
Prosecutors argued that Ennels voluntarily consented to the blood test. However, Moulton said the "DL-26" form police gave to Ennels during his arrest warned him that he was subject to additional criminal penalties for not submitting to a blood test.
"Even if the DUI charges related only to controlled substances, we would conclude that the trial court did not err in finding Evans' consent was involuntary. The DL-26 form read to and signed by Ennels informed him that he would face enhanced penalties if he refused the blood test," Moulton said. "In particular, it informed him that if he refused, he would face a minimum of 72 hours in jail and a $1,000.00 fine and a maximum of five years' in jail and a $10,000 fine, based on his refusal."
He continued, "That those happened to be the same penalties for DUI (controlled substance) is irrelevant to the voluntary consent analysis. Although the form identified the applicable statutes, it did not mention the penalties for DUI of a controlled substance, or that the enhancements applied only to those convicted of DUI of alcohol. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that the enhanced penalties applied if he refused the chemical test and later was convicted, regardless of whether he was convicted of an alcohol-related DUI or a drug-related DUI."