Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
Birchfield v. North Dakota - States May Not Punish DUI Blood Test Refusals
In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to criminally penalize a motorist for refusing to submit to a DUI blood test when the police have not obtained a search warrant for the motorist's blood.
DUI Defense Update - Birchfield v. North Dakota
DUI Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein
The United States Supreme Court recently issued a critical opinion which has already had a dramatic effect on Driving Under the Influence ("DUI/DWI") litigation in Pennsylvania and many other states. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to criminally penalize a motorist for refusing to submit to a DUI blood test when the police have not obtained a search warrant for the motorist's blood. This holding is a major development in Pennsylvania because the DUI statute, 75 Pa.C.S. 3802, provided enhanced criminal penalties for a motorist who refused the blood draw and was later found guilty of DUI. Now, unless the police obtain a warrant, a motorist cannot be punished with additional jail time or other additional criminal penalties for refusing the blood draw. The prosecutor may be able to comment on the refusal at trial, but the motorist cannot receive additional jail time or a higher gradation on a conviction.
New Defenses in Drug DUI Cases and Blood Test DUI Cases
The holding is also critically important for many defendants who have already been arrested for DUI and either refused the blood test or had their blood drawn without a warrant. Birchfield is particularly important because the Court also recognized that where the arresting officers improperly inform a defendant that the failure to submit to a blood draw will result in criminal penalties, the trial court may be required to exclude the results of the blood test as the product of unconstitutional coercion.
The Impact on DUI Charges in Philadelphia
This holding is particularly relevant in Philadelphia and much of Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, DUI blood draws are supervised by the Accident Investigation Division of the Philadelphia Police Department. Prior to each blood draw, the AID Division would read what are known as the O'Connell warnings to the defendant. The O'Connell warnings historically included a statement to the defendant that refusal to submit to a blood test, even where the police had not obtained a warrant, would result in increased criminal penalties should the defendant be convicted of DUI at trial. Likewise, the State Police read a very similar form when they supervised DUI-related blood testing. The warnings may now be constitutionally defective and could require a court to exclude the results of the blood draw obtained pursuant to these coercive warnings.
Contact a Philadelphia DUI Defense Attorney Today
Philadelphia DUI Lawyers
If you have been arrested for DUI, it is absolutely critical that you consult with experienced defense counsel. As I have explained in previous posts, there are often defenses available which only an experienced criminal lawyer will recognize. Prosecutors are handling these cases differently in different jurisdictions, and many state trial courts have not yet ruled on how Birchfield changes the rules in Pennsylvania. If you have been charged with DUI and the Police conducted a blood draw or asked you to submit to a blood draw, you need an experienced criminal lawyer to evaluate your case, recognize the potential defenses, and make the right legal arguments on your behalf. Call 267-225-2545 today for a free, honest consultation.
I got arrested for DUI. Do I have to plead guilty?
If you are charged with DUI in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, you need an experienced, aggressive criminal defense attorney who knows the law inside and out and can review your case for all possible defenses.
Every day I speak with people who have been charged with Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”) and think that because they were driving drunk and got pulled over, they have to plead guilty. They are often surprised to learn that there are often defenses to many DUI cases.
First, if you don’t have a record, sometimes it is best to take a deal and enter the ARD program. When a defendant does not have a record and was not involved in a serious accident, the Commonwealth will usually offer ARD. ARD stands for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition. The program involves serving a short period of probation, a license suspension, and paying fines and court costs. The defendant does not have to plead guilty to enter into the ARD program, and the arrest and case will be expunged if the defendant successfully completes the program. If the defendant fails to complete the probation, then the defendant will be removed from the program and retain the right to litigate pretrial motions or proceed to trial. Even when the evidence suggests a strong defense, ARD is often a good option because it provides the only guarantee of an expungement at the end of the case. ARD is typically only available for someone who does not have any prior convictions, and it is rarely offered twice. The Commonwealth often offers ARD for non-DUI misdemeanors.
Second, if ARD is not offered or the defendant wishes to fight the case, there are a number of potential defenses that an experienced criminal defense and DUI attorney may be able to present. These defenses include motions to suppress. The motion to suppress is a motion filed by the defense attorney arguing that because the police engaged in some unlawful conduct, such as stopping or searching the defendant illegally, the evidence of intoxication such as the blood test should be excluded at trial. Other potential defenses may include speedy trial motions, double jeopardy motions, and motions to exclude testing results due to a failure to properly calibrate the testing equipment. Additionally, there are many other complicated procedural rules which the police and prosecutor have to follow in order to bring a successful prosecution. The failure to follow each one of these rules could result in the dismissal of the case or exclusion of the evidence. Finally, if pre-trial motions do not result in dismissal of the charges, an experienced defense attorney may be able to challenge the Commonwealth’s evidence that the defendant actually operated the vehicle or was intoxicated.
DUI carries the potential for serious penalties in terms of mandatory minimum incarceration periods, criminal records, and license suspension. If you are charged with DUI in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, you need an experienced, aggressive criminal defense attorney who knows the law inside and out and can review your case for all possible defenses. You need an attorney who does not handle these cases “part-time.” Your freedom, driver’s license, and reputation depend on it. If you have been charged with DUI in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, contact the Philadelphia DUI defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC for a free consultation today.
Related DUI Articles:
