implied consent warning in Pennsylvania

2019“An officer’s sole duty is to inform motorists of the implied consent warnings; once they have done so, they have satisfied their obligation.” Martinovic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30, 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

2016Moreover, this Court has previously held that “[a]n officer’s sole duty is to inform motorists of the implied consent warnings; once they [sic] have done so, they [sic] have satisfied their [sic] obligation.” Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30, 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (emphasis added).

2026“Once a police officer provides the implied consent warnings to a motorist, the officer has done all that is legally required to ensure the motorist is fully advised of the consequences of her failure to submit to chemical testing.” Park v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 178 A.3d 274, 281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

2018See Park v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (licensee waived constitutional challenge by failing to raise it during the appeal hearing); Campbell v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 86 A.3d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (licensee has a duty to preserve an issue at every stage of the proceeding; licensee waived challenge to validity of the implied consent warning given by failing to raise that issue at the appeal hearing).

2019As to the requirement set forth in Section 1547(b)(2)(i), in Yourick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 341, 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc), a case involving the sufficiency of the warnings stated on an earlier version of the DL-26 Form, this Court explained (with emphasis added): There is no requirement in Vehicle Code Section 1547(b)(2)(i) that the implied consent warning issued by 6 an officer contain any specific wording.

2019Yourick v. Dep’t of Transp., 9 Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 341, 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

2024Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott, 684 A.2d 539, 546 (Pa. 1996).

2023Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver 6 Licensing v. Scott, 684 A.2d 539 (Pa. 1996).

2020Biggins read the implied consent warnings contained in the updated Pennsylvania State Police DL-26B form, which had been revised in response to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016).

2019There, Officer Cain read Licensee the implied consent warnings (Form DL-26).2 Despite the fact that a new form was created in response to the decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S.___, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016),3 Officer Cain read the first four paragraphs of the old DL-26 Form to Licensee.

2018Id. at 331 .

2018As Lieutenant Beckus testified, when they arrived at the hospital, the officers took [Evans] to the laboratory and Officer Green advised [Evans] of [] the implied consent warnings []. *** Lieutenant Beckus testified that, after [Evans] was informed of the above, [Evans] agreed to submit to the requested blood draw. -3- J-A06026-18 Evans, 153 A.3d at 324–26 (footnotes, quotation marks, and record citations omitted).

2021Hatalski v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 386, 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 4 This Court’s scope of review is “limited to determining whether [the trial court] committed an error of law, whether [the trial court] abused its discretion, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Garlick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030 , 1035 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 5 Nardone v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 130 A.3d 738, 749 (Pa. 2015)).) The Department responds that Officer Paulus read the Implied Consent warnings t

2021Hatalski v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 386, 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 4 This Court’s scope of review is “limited to determining whether [the trial court] committed an error of law, whether [the trial court] abused its discretion, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Garlick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030 , 1035 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 5 Nardone v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 130 A.3d 738, 749 (Pa. 2015)).) The Department responds that Officer Paulus read the Implied Consent warnings t

2023Quigley v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

2020Id. (emphasis added); see also Quigley v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (stating that the implied consent warnings issued by an officer need not contain any specific wording; rather, they “must merely ‘inform’ a licensee that his[] ‘operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing’”) (citation omitted).

2021(Department’s Br. at 10.) The Department contends that “[a]nything substantially less than an unqualified, unequivocal assent by [a] licensee to the officer’s request is a refusal of chemical testing.” (Id. at 9 (citing Dep’t of Transp. v. Renwick, 669 A.2d 934, 939 (Pa. 1996)).) Additionally, the Department cites the trial court’s finding that Licensee refused Officer Paulus’s request for a chemical test.

2021Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Renwick, 669 A.2d 934, 939 (Pa. 1996); McKenna v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 72 A.3d 294, 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Lanthier v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 22 A.3d 346, 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2021Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Renwick, 669 A.2d 934, 939 (Pa. 1996); McKenna v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 72 A.3d 294, 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Lanthier v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 22 A.3d 346, 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2016The licensee bears the burden “to establish that []he was not capable of making a conscious and knowing refusal to submit to chemical testing.” Lanthier v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 22 A.3d 346, 348-49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2021Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Renwick, 669 A.2d 934, 939 (Pa. 1996); McKenna v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 72 A.3d 294, 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Lanthier v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 22 A.3d 346, 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2016See, e.g., McKenna, 72 A.3d at 300-01 (stating that officer has no duty to answer licensee’s questions or ensure that licensee fully comprehends warnings); Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 881 A.2d 30, 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (“An officer’s sole duty is to inform motorists of the implied consent warnings; once they have done so, they have satisfied their obligation.”) (emphasis in original).

2017See Birchfield, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7-10 , 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1415-16 , 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 , 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1821 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)); see also People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 970 (Colo. 2017) (Eid, J., concurring) (“In Birchfield , the Court reasoned that ‘inferr[ing]’ such consent to search is reasonable, essentially as a matter of law, from the statutory ‘context.’ ... [T]he defendant is deemed by statute to have consented to BAC testing by virtue of driving on the roads, making irrelevant his

2017See Birchfield, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7-10 , 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1415-16 , 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 , 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1821 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)); see also People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 970 (Colo. 2017) (Eid, J., concurring) (“In Birchfield , the Court reasoned that ‘inferr[ing]’ such consent to search is reasonable, essentially as a matter of law, from the statutory ‘context.’ ... [T]he defendant is deemed by statute to have consented to BAC testing by virtue of driving on the roads, making irrelevant his

2017See Birchfield, __ U.S. at __, 136 S. Ct. at 2185 (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 , __, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1415-16 (2013); Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 , 98 S. Ct. 1816, 1821 (1978)); see also People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 970 (2017) (Eid, J., concurring) (“In Birchfield, the Court reasoned that ‘inferr[ing]’ such consent to search is reasonable, essentially as a matter of law, from the statutory ‘context.’ . . . [T]he defendant is deemed by statute to have consented to BAC testing by virtue of driving on the roads, making irrelevant his inability to consent (due to his

2017See Birchfield, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7-10 , 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1415-16 , 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 , 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1821 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)); see also People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 970 (Colo. 2017) (Eid, J., concurring) (“In Birchfield , the Court reasoned that ‘inferr[ing]’ such consent to search is reasonable, essentially as a matter of law, from the statutory ‘context.’ ... [T]he defendant is deemed by statute to have consented to BAC testing by virtue of driving on the roads, making irrelevant his

2022The O’Connell Court held that the Implied Consent warnings must include a notice that the licensee’s Miranda rights are inapplicable in this context, and that a licensee “is entitled to this information so that his choice to take a breathalyzer test can be knowing and conscious . . . .” Id. at 878 .

2022The O’Connell Court held that the Implied Consent warnings must include a notice that the licensee’s Miranda rights are inapplicable in this context, and that a licensee “is entitled to this information so that his choice to take a breathalyzer test can be knowing and conscious . . . .” Id. at 878 .

2022Reinhart v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 954 A.2d 761 , 765 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 4 Issues Licensee presents three issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that Trooper Treadway was not required to obtain a search warrant before requesting a blood sample from Licensee; (2) whether the Trial Court erred in finding that Licensee refused chemical testing when he asked Trooper Treadway to obtain a search warrant after reading the implied consent warnings to Licensee; and (3) whether the Troopers committed a federal crime by punishing Licens

2018Reinhart v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 954 A.2d 761 , 765 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 4 Here, the parties stipulated that: Trooper Carrera had reasonable grounds to arrest Licensee for driving under the influence; Trooper Carrera asked Licensee to submit to a blood test; Licensee refused; and Trooper Carrera read to Licensee the implied consent warnings in Form DL-26B verbatim.

2015See Commonwealth v. Xander, 14 A.3d 174 (Pa. Super. 2011) (refusal to submit to chemical testing necessarily requires knowing refusal insofar as police must have provided arrestee with warnings beforehand).

2013Recently, in Commonwealth v. Xander, 14 A.3d 174 (Pa.Super.2011), this Court held that, before the enhanced penalties for refusal of chemical testing can apply to a DUI defendant, the arresting police officer first must have issued the implied consent warnings as required by 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a)(2)(h).

2021Hatalski v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 386, 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 4 This Court’s scope of review is “limited to determining whether [the trial court] committed an error of law, whether [the trial court] abused its discretion, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Garlick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030 , 1035 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 5 Nardone v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 130 A.3d 738, 749 (Pa. 2015)).) The Department responds that Officer Paulus read the Implied Consent warnings t

2021Hatalski v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 386, 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 4 This Court’s scope of review is “limited to determining whether [the trial court] committed an error of law, whether [the trial court] abused its discretion, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Garlick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 176 A.3d 1030 , 1035 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 5 Nardone v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 130 A.3d 738, 749 (Pa. 2015)).) The Department responds that Officer Paulus read the Implied Consent warnings t

2017See Birchfield, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7-10 , 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1415-16 , 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 , 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1821 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)); see also People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 970 (Colo. 2017) (Eid, J., concurring) (“In Birchfield , the Court reasoned that ‘inferr[ing]’ such consent to search is reasonable, essentially as a matter of law, from the statutory ‘context.’ ... [T]he defendant is deemed by statute to have consented to BAC testing by virtue of driving on the roads, making irrelevant his

2017See Birchfield, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7-10 , 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1415-16 , 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 , 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1821 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)); see also People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 970 (Colo. 2017) (Eid, J., concurring) (“In Birchfield , the Court reasoned that ‘inferr[ing]’ such consent to search is reasonable, essentially as a matter of law, from the statutory ‘context.’ ... [T]he defendant is deemed by statute to have consented to BAC testing by virtue of driving on the roads, making irrelevant his

2017The Court nevertheless concluded that when the police need such information, “[njothing prevents [them] from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so ... or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.” Id. (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1568 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). 6 The Court next addressed whether a warrantless blood test is permissible under the implied-consent exception to the warrant requirement.

2017The Court nevertheless concluded that when the police need such information, “[njothing prevents [them] from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so ... or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.” Id. (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1568 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). 6 The Court next addressed whether a warrantless blood test is permissible under the implied-consent exception to the warrant requirement.