Articles Posted in Blood Testing

Published on:

by

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. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In DUI cases, courts often rely on evidence from medical records, including blood alcohol content (BAC) results, to support convictions. Recently, a Pennsylvania court affirmed a trial court’s decision to admit BAC evidence from a defendant’s medical records despite the defendant’s challenge based on hearsay and confrontation rights. If you are accused of a DUI crime, it is prudent to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to understand your rights and defenses.

Factual Setting and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a serious vehicle collision after drinking at a local bar and subsequently making an unsafe left turn, resulting in a collision with another vehicle. Allegedly, this accident led to substantial injuries for a passenger in the other car, who required multiple surgeries and extensive rehabilitation. The defendant was transported to a local hospital for treatment, where blood samples were collected and analyzed, revealing a BAC of 0.21.

Allegedly, following her recovery, the defendant was charged with aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI and two DUI offenses. She moved to suppress the BAC evidence, arguing that her blood was drawn for legal, not medical, purposes and that its use in court violated her rights. The trial court admitted the BAC evidence under the medical records exception to the hearsay rule, leading to the defendant’s conviction. She subsequently appealed, raising several arguments concerning the admissibility of her medical records. Continue reading

Published on:

by

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. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, while motorists suspected of DUI are deemed to consent to breath tests pursuant to the implied consent law, they must provide express consent to submit to a blood test. Such consent must be voluntary and informed, however. If it is not, and a test is administered regardless, there may be grounds for suppressing the results of the test. Recently, in a Pennsylvania DUI case in which the defendant argued his consent to submit to a blood test was not valid due to language barriers, the court explained the grounds for suppressing blood test results. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in Pennsylvania, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer.

Factual and Procedural Setting of the Case

It is reported that in January 2020, the defendant was involved in a car accident in which he rear-ended a bus at a railroad crossing. A police officer arrived at the scene, and his dashboard camera recorded the interaction. The officer questioned the defendant, who, despite having difficulty understanding English, provided information about the incident. Despite the officer’s persistent questioning about alcohol consumption, the defendant denied drinking.

Allegedly, the defendant, who is from Russia, presented an international driving permit when asked for his license and explained why he didn’t have a Pennsylvania license. After performing poorly on field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. The defendant consented to a blood test, and the results showed a high level of alcohol in his blood. At trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI and sentenced to probation. He then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions protect people from unreasonable searches. This means, among other things, that a DUI suspect cannot be compelled to submit to a blood test absent a warrant. There are some exceptions to this rule, though, such as when exigent circumstances exist. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed what constitutes an adequate urgent situation to allow the warrant requirement to be set aside in a DUI case in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is crucial to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant drove his car onto train tracks, after which a train collided with the car and pushed it a quarter of a mile. When first responders arrived at the scene of the accident, the defendant was outside of his vehicle while his fiancé and their daughter were still inside the car. The fiancé was pronounced dead at the scene, and the defendant and his daughter were transported to the hospital for treatment.

It is reported that an officer that investigated the accident smelled marijuana coming from the car. Thus, he directed another officer to interview the defendant at the hospital and obtain a legal blood draw. When that officer arrived at the hospital, the defendant was restrained and drifting in and out of consciousness, and could not consent to a blood test. His blood was drawn prior to the officer’s arrival, though. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In most DUI cases, the Commonwealth will rely on the results of a blood or breath test to support the argument that the defendant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Under Pennsylvania implied consent law, drivers are deemed to agree to submit to breath tests and can face penalties for refusing to do so. Blood draws taken absent valid consent may constitute unreasonable search and seizures, though, and the results of such tests may be deemed inadmissible. In a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a case in which the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a blood test were denied, a court discussed what constitutes valid and knowing consent to submit to a blood test. If you are charged with a DUI crime based on the results of a blood test, it is prudent to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to evaluate your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Blood Test

It is reported that the defendant was involved in an accident while driving his motorcycle. The officer investigating the accident found that the defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol, and his demeanor indicated that it was likely that he had consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol to be rendered unable to drive safely. The defendant was transported to the hospital and was given fentanyl on the way there.

Allegedly, once the defendant was at the hospital, his blood was drawn, and testing revealed his BAC to be .096%. He was charged with numerous DUI charges and, prior to trial, filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing that he did not provide knowing consent to the test. He was convicted on each count, after which he appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pursuant to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, the results of blood alcohol tests obtained without a warrant are inadmissible in many cases. Specifically, even if an officer obtained a defendant’s consent prior to the test, the consent will be deemed invalid if it was provided following a warning of increased criminal penalties for refusing to submit. In the wake of Birchfield, courts throughout the country continue to determine when and how the ruling should apply. This was demonstrated in a recent ruling in a Pennsylvania DUI case that was pending when the Birchfield decision was issued. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is prudent to speak to a trusted Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to determine your rights.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant struck two pedestrians while driving her vehicle. Police investigating the accident asked her to submit to field sobriety testing. She agreed and performed poorly. She then submitted to a breath test and was arrested for multiple DUI offenses and transported to the police station. When she arrived there, she was read the implied consent warnings and submitted to a blood test.

Allegedly, before the defendant’s hearing, she filed a motion to suppress the results of her blood test based on the Birchfield ruling. The trial court granted the motion, after which the Commonwealth appealed. The issue went through multiple additional rounds of appeals and was ultimately remanded to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Many people who are stopped for suspicion of DUI are reluctant to submit to a blood test and believe that if the Commonwealth does not obtain their blood alcohol level, the prosecution will not be able to obtain a conviction. As illustrated in a recent Pennsylvania DUI case, though, such a belief is inaccurate, and a person can be convicted of DUI based on circumstantial evidence alone. If you are charged with a Pennsylvania DUI crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should meet with a skilled Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to set forth at trial.

The Defendant’s Stop and Arrest

It is alleged that the arresting officer observed the defendant’s car in the corner of a bar parking lot with its hood up. The officer took note of the car because the bar was closed and no one else was in the lot. He then observed the defendant drive the car onto a nearby roadway and proceed to drive erratically. After the defendant almost veered off the road, the officer activated his sirens and stopped him.

Reportedly, the officer noticed that the defendant’s speech was slurred, and his eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that he smelled of alcohol. The defendant admitted to consuming three beers over a six-hour period. He denied that he was intoxicated, however. The officer requested that the defendant submitted to field sobriety testing, but he refused. He was then transported to the police station, where he refused to submit to a blood test. He was then charged with and convicted of driving under the influence – general impairment. Following his conviction, he appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Although the seminal DUI case of Birchfield v. North Dakota was decided three years ago, courts continue to analyze its impact on DUI cases throughout the country, including in Pennsylvania. For example, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently addressed the issue of whether the Birchfield ruling should be applied retroactively to vacate sentences handed down prior to the ruling. If you are a resident of Pennsylvania currently charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to consult a diligent Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your options.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentence

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI – general impairment in September 2015, which was his third DUI offense. The defendant entered an open guilty plea. He was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 18 months to five years, which included a sentence enhancement due to his refusal to submit to a blood test to determine his BAC level. He did not file an appeal following his sentencing. In August 2016, however, following the Birchfield ruling, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his sentence was illegal. His petition was dismissed, after which he appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court ruling, finding that Birchfield did not apply retroactively. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Birchfield’s Impact on Sentences Issued Due to a Failure to Submit to a Blood Test

Generally, a new rule of criminal procedure does not apply to convictions that were final at the time the rule was developed. New substantive rules may be applied retroactively, however, as well as rules that are deemed watershed rules of criminal procedure. In other words, these are rules that involve the essential fairness and correctness of criminal matters. In contrast to substantive rules, procedural rules are intended to improve the accuracy of a sentence or conviction by modifying the manner in which a defendant’s guilt is determined.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania’s implied consent law, anyone driving on Pennsylvania roads is presumed to consent to chemical testing. While an individual who is suspected of DUI is permitted to withdraw his or her consent, it can result in civil penalties, such as the loss of his or her license. Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the provision of the implied consent statute that permits the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of a person’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test as proof of knowledge of guilt. If you are charged with a DUI following a refusal to submit to a blood test it is critical to engage an aggressive Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assist you in formulating an effective defense.

Facts of the case

Reportedly, the defendant, who was suspected of DUI, was transported to the Lycoming County DUI center. Upon arrival, he was read the PennDOT DL-26 form, after which he refused to submit to a blood draw. He was charged with DUI general impairment. Prior to the trial, the defendant filed a motion to preclude evidence of his refusal to submit to a blood test, which the court denied.

Allegedly, during the trial, the arresting officer testified that the defendant would not submit to a blood test following his arrest. The defendant was convicted after which he filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of his refusal to submit to a blood test, arguing that his right to refuse testing was protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The trial court granted the motion. The Commonwealth subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and remanded. The defendant then sought review.

Continue reading