There has been a drastic change under Pennsylvania DUI law as a result of the Birchfield ruling and the implications on implied consent. This blog will address DUI implied consent law after Birchfield. Recently, the United States Supreme Court decided a Fourth Amendment case concerning refusal of blood testing after being pulled over for DUI. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ____ (2016), DUI what's at stake? holds the government may not criminalize a driver's refusal to submit to a blood test without a warrant. The government still can criminalize a driver's refusal to provide a breath sample without a warrant if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a driver is under the influence.
Under Pennsylvania law, blood must be taken from a DUI defendant within two hours of his being in physical control of a motor vehicle. Specifically, under 75 Pa C.S. § 3801 § (c), in order for an accused to be found guilty of dui, the defendant's blood alcohol content must be measured as over .08% within two hours of his having driven on a roadway. read about implied consent here If the blood is drawn more than two hours after an accused was operating a vehicle, then it is per se inadmissible in a court of law. The Pennsylvania Superior Court made this holding in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Segiday (holding that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to support either of Segida's convictions - under 3802 §§ (a)(1) or (c));
Pennsylvania operates under the implied consent rule for individuals charged with either a DUI or DWI. What is probable cause for a DUI The general rule is that any person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of his car shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical tests of breath, blood or urine for the purpose of measuring the amount of alcohol or narcotics in his blood.