### J - S55008 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v. MICHAEL R. BARNA Appellee No. 2668 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order August 6 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): MC - 51 - CR - 0021676 - 2012 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * 

### MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that granted a writ of certiorari from a judgment of sentence imposed by the Philadelphia Munici pal Court following Michael R. Barna’s convictions for DUI (impaired ability) 1 

### and DUI (controlled substance). 2 

### After careful review, we affirm based on the opinion of the Honorable Michael E. Erdos. On May 25, 2012, at 5:25 a.m., Barna was involved in a motor vehicle accident. When an EMT arrived on the scene he saw needles, syringes and

____________________________________________
* 

### Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 

### 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2).
2 

### 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1).

### J - S55008 - 16

- 2 -

pills scattered around the vehicle. Believing that Barna was suffering from an opiate overdose, the EMT administered Narcan, which reverses the effects of opiates. Barna was arrested for DUI and was transported to Hahnemann Hospital. At 6:10 a.m., Philadelphia Police Officer William Lackman arrived at the hospital where medical personnel were stabilizing Barna, who was unconscious and intubated. At Officer Lackman’ s request, a nurse drew blood from Barna for chemical testing. Officer Lackman did not obtain a warrant before the blood draw. Barna filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, which the Municipal Court denied on February 24, 2014. Following a no n - jury trial, Barna was convicted of the above
- referenced offenses and on June 23, 2014, the court sentenced him to 90 to 180 days’ incarceration and 18 months’ probation. On October 31, 2014, the Municipal Court granted Barna’s request to file a petition for writ of certiorari nunc pro tunc . Barna then filed a petition asserting that the seizure of his blood was unlawful. On August 6, 2015, the trial court granted the writ of certiorari, thus reversing Barna’s conviction and vacating his sentence.

### J - S55008 - 16

- 3 -

The Commonwealth filed this timely appeal, 3 

### in which it raises the following issue for our review: Where police had probable cause to believe that [Barna] had been driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and where [Barna] was unconscious followi ng a car accident, did the lower court err in suppressing drug results based on his failure to express consent notwithstanding the implied consent statute? Appellant’s Brief, at 4. “A lower court’s decision on the issuance of a writ of certiorari will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Certiorari provides a narrow scope of review in a summary criminal matter and allows review solely for questions of law.” Commonwealth v. Elisco , 666 A.2d 739, 740 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted). Becau se we are reviewing a question of law, our standard of review is de nov o and our scope of review is plenary. Bastian v. Sullivan , 117 A.3d 338, 342 (Pa. Super. 2015). In his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, Judge Erdos explains that in Commonwealth v. Myers , 1 18 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015), this Court held that in the absence of exigent circumstances, police may not obtain a

____________________________________________ 3 

### In its statement of jurisdiction, the Commonwealth notes that it has cer tified that the order on appeal will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution of the case. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). However, Rule 311(d) is inapposite because the case has already been prosecuted. While it is possible that the judgment of sente nce imposed by the Municipal Court may eventually be affirmed, any further prosecution would violate double jeopardy principles.

### J - S55008 - 16

- 4 -

blood sample under the implied consent law without a warrant. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari was granted. On February 3, 2016, our Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in Myers . 4 

### Nevertheless, as the Commonwealth recognizes, this Court’s decision in Myers “is controlling.” Appellant’s Brief, at 5. We affirm the order granting a writ of certiorari based on the opinion of Judge Erdos. We direct the parties to attach a copy of that decision in the event of further proceedings in this matter. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/9/2016

____________________________________________ 4 

### The Supreme Court has docketed the appeal at 7 EAP 2016.1

N
. T
. I/1 4 /14 at 5
. Offi c e r Yo s t l ooked i ns i de th e v e h i cl e and observ e d n e e dle s , s yri n g e s , a n d No t e s o f T es ti mo n y (N.T. ) 1/1 4 /l 4 at 5 , 9
. Paramed i c Offi c e r Yos t was d i spat c h ed t o the sce n e . O n M ay 2 5, 20 1 2 at aro u nd 5 : 2 5 a . rn., Appe ll e e wa s in v o lv e d in a n au to m ob il e co lli s i o n . FA C T S convictio n . T h is C o mm onw eal th appea l fo ll owed
. A ppe ll ee's Wri t of C e rtiorari , th e r e b y vacati ng A ppelle e's s ente n c e a n d r ever s i ng Appe ll e e ' s Ce rti orari t o C o mm o n P le as C ourt . On Aug u s t 6, 20 1 5, thi s Court issued an O rd er granti n g 1 8 0 d ays confi nement a n d 18 m o n ths of p robati on . O n Ju l y 1 8 , 20 1 4, Appe ll ee filed a Writ o f K o s i ns ki fo u nd App e ll e e g uil ty. On Jun e 23, 2 01 4, Ju dge K o s i nski sente n c e d A pp e ll e e to 9 0 - Carr Den i
. S ub seque nt ly, aft er a n o n -j u ry tri a l o n Marc h 1 2, 2 01 4 , th e Ho n orab l e Gerard A. Artic le I , § 8 of th e Pennsy l vania Cons ti tutio n . T h is m otio n was denied by th e Ho n o r ab l e T e r e s a supp r ess hi s drug t e s t r es ult s un de r the Fo urth Ame nd me nt of Uni t ed S t at es Co n s titu ti o n and th e Influ e nc e pur su ant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 38 0 2. O n , Jan u ary 1 4, 2 0 14, Appe ll ee ar g u ed a motion t o ERDOS, J
. O n M ay 25, 2 01 2, Ap p e ll ee Mich ae l B arn a was arr es t ed a n d c h ar ged w i th D ri v i n g Under OPINION 

## 111111 1 111111111111111111 7 35 910 0461 

# F!LED OCT 2 0 2015 

## Criminal Appeals 

# Unit First Judic i al District of PA ~ 1C-5 1 -C R - C021 6 76 · 20 12 C orr,m . v . Bama , IA lch ael R.

Cpln!on 266 8 ED A 2015 MICHAEL BARN A 

### v . COMMON WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COM1\!ION PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTIUCT OF PENNSYLVANI A

CIUMINAL TIUAL DIVISION MC-51-CR

- 0021676-2012 

# .. Circulated 06/24/2016 01:18 PM2 Any pe r so n who driv e s , o p e rat e s or i s in a c tu al ph y s ic al c o n trol of th e m ov e m e n t o f a ve h i cl e i n th i s C ommonw e a lth s h a ll be d eem e d to h av e gi ven c o n s ent to o n e o r m o r e P e nn s y l van i a ' s imp li e d con s en t s t atu te p r ov i d e s : th e imp li e d c on se nt s t atut e ? dru g t es t re s ult s b as e d o n th e u n consc i ou s de fe nd a nt 's fa ilur e t o e x p r e ss c o n s e n t n o tw i thst a n di n g A pp e ll a nt ra i ses th e fo llowi n g cl a im o n app e al: Di d th e l o we r c o urt e rr i n s u pp r e ss i n g D IS C USSI ON 

### 2 0. N or d i d h e ora ll y a g r ee t o a b l ood dra w . N
. T. 

### 11 1 4/ 1 4 at 

### 20
. 1 9. A p p e ll ee was n e ither s how n n or s i g n e d a n y fo rm s by Office r Lac k.man N
. T
. 

### 1/ 1 4 / 14 at 

### 1 9 - fo r a warr a n t fo r th e blo od t es t , as h e d id n o t be li eve a warr an t wa s r e q uir e d
. N. T
. 

### 1/ 1 4/1 4 1 8 - l at e r th at afte rn oo n . N .T. 

### 1 /1 4 /1 4 at 

### 1 8- 1 9
. O f ficer Lackm an d id n ot ca ll a m a g i strat e o r a j u d ge 

### 1/1 4 / 1 4 at 

### 17. H e w a s u nco n scio u s d urin g th e en ti r e p ro c ess and r e m a in ed u nc o n s ci o u s u n til te st fro m A pp e ll e e . N .T
. 

### 1/ 14/ 14 at 

### 1 6. T h e nur se drew A pp e ll ee ' s b l o od at 

### 6:20 a. m . N. T
. in tu b ate d. N
. T. 

### 1/14/14 at 

### 16
. Offi c e r La c kman t o l d th e traum a nur se th at h e n e ed e d a b l o o d A p p e lle e w a s be ing s tabili ze d b y fo ur n ur s es a nd a d oc t o r ; h e was a lr ea d y un consc i o u s a n d dir ec ted to 

### App e llee , wh o w a s l ocated in th e traum a b ay . N .T. 

### 1/ 14/ 14 at 

### 1 6. A t thi s ti m e, te s t. N.T
. 

### 111 4/1 4 at 

### 1 5 -1 6: He arri ved at H ahn emann Hos pi ta l aro un d 

### 6 : 1 0 a.m . a n d 

### was In ves ti gati on Dis tri ct w as d i s pat ch ed at that time t o Hahn e m ann H o s pital t o con d uc t a chemi ca l tr an s port t o th e h ospit a l. N
. T
. 

### 1/ 14 /14 at 

### 7 , 9
. O ffic er Willi a m L a ckma n of th e A cci de nt w as not ab le t o c oop e rate wi th or an sw e r qu es tion s fr om par ame dic s at th e s cen e o r du rin g h i s an d tran spo rt e d to 

### H ahne mann U ni v e r s i ty . N .T
. 

### 1/14/14 at 

### 6

- 8, 16
. D ue t o hi s i njurie s , A p pe ll ee i n d i cati ve o f a n o pi at e ov er dos e . N
. T. 

### 1/14 / 14 at 

### 8. App e lle e w as s u bs e quen tl y arr e sted for DU I pill s s catter ed aro un d
. N. T
. 

### 1114/ 14 at 

### 6
. H e a ls o o bserv ed th at A p pe lle e's pupil s were pinp o in t,3

The Philadelphia Municipal Court suppressed test results from the warrantless blood draw and Myers was subsequently charged with DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. §3802(a). Id at 1123. blood draw, which was performed at 5:01 p.111. Id. officers did not request a warrant before the bloo<l draw; rather, they requested a warrantless consent warnings, to which Myers did not respon<l due to his unconscious state. Id at 1124. 'foe attempted to speak with Myers at the hospital and proceeded to read him the standard informed unresponsive upon the arrival of police officers around 4:45 p.m. Id. at 1123-24. An officer influence sometime around 3 :30 p.m., 

### transported to the hospital, and was unconscious and (Pa. Super. 2015), 

### reargument denied (Aug. 7, 2015). Myers was arrested for driving under the backdrop of Pennsylvania's implied consent law. 

### See Commonwealth v. Myers, 118 A.3d 1122 The Superior Court recently addressed the issue of an unconscious blood draw against the applied the law to the facts. 

### Commonwealth v. Hudson, 92 A.3d 1235, 1241 (Pa. Super. 2014). not binding on an appellate 

### court, whose duty is to determine if the suppression court properly defers to the suppression court's findings of fact, the suppression court's conclusions of law are . The standard for review for a suppression order is well-settled. While the appellate court privilege of the person
.... " 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(l)
. be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating section 3802 is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not Moreover, 

### § 1547(b )( 1) commands that "[i]f any person placed under arrest for a violation of chemical tests of breath, blood or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of bloo<l or the presence of a controlled substance if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating or in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle: (1) 

### in violation of section ... 3802 (relating to driving under influence ofalcohol or controlled substance). 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a)(l).4



### the P h ilad elph i a C ourt of C o mm o n Pl e a s de n i e d r eli e f fro m that o r d e r. I d 

### Th e S up eri o r Co u rt
a ffi rmed
. T he 

### M yers Co urt reli e d on 

### Misso u ri v . Mcileely, 113 S
. Ct. 1 552(20 13 ), in w hi ch th e S up re m e C o urt o f th e Unite d St ates h e ld that " in drunk-dri v in g inv e s tigati o n s , th e n atur a l d is s ipati o n o f a lco h o l in the b l oo d s tream d o es n ot con s titu te an e x i g en cy i n eve ry c as e s uffi cient t o ju s tify con d u cting a bl o od tes t w ithou t a w arr an t. " 11 3 S
. Ct. at 1 568. F u rthe r , th e 

### 1\tfcNee l y Co urt fo u n d that "i n tho se driv in g situ ati o ns w h ere p o lic e o ffi ce r s c an reaso n ab l y o b t ai n a
w arr an t b e fo re a blo od sa mpl e c an be drawn with o ut s ignifi ca ntl y und e rminin g the efficac y of the s ear c h, th e F o urth Am e n d m e nt m a nd ates that they d o s o. " I d. at 1 56 1
. T h e Hi g h Co urt a l s o
s tat ed that th e t o t al i ty o f th e c ircum sta nc e s mu s t be c o nsi de r ed whe n de t e rmin ing wh e th e r a
warr an tl es s blood dra w i s r easo n abl e. I d. at 1 5 6 3. Th e 

### M y e r s Co u rt con cl u de d th at th e b l o o d te s t re su lt s from th e de fe nd a n t had b ee n p rop e rly s uppre s s ed becau se th e r e was n o ex i g e ncy - - di ss ip ati o n of alcoho l in th e bloodstr eam
or otherwis e -- j u sti fy in g th e warrantl e ss blo o d dr a w. 11 8 A.3 d at 11 27. Th e Co u rt
a cknow l e dg ed th at Mcilee l

y h a d not a ddr e ss ed th e is s u e o f P en ns y lv an i a 's impl i ed c ons ent
s tatute but str es se d th at b e cau s e My ers was un c o ns ci o us at th e ti m e of th e bl ood t es t , h e d i d not ha v e th e o pp o rtu nity to re fu se th e te s tin g and ther e by " cl ai m the statut o ry pr o t e c ti o n o f S ection 15 4 7 (b ) ( l) .' ' Id. 

### at 11 27-3 0
. Her e , similar to Mye r s , Ap pe llee was arr es ted for D U I
. An d li ke Myer s, A pp e ll e e was
un co n s ci o u s a nd u nr e s p on s iv e at th e tim e of the b lo od dra w. Thu s, Appell e e did n ot c onsent t o the bl ood t e s t, n or w a s h e abl e to r e fu se his co n se n t t o the t es t un der P e n n s y l va ni a' s impli e d
c on se n t s t atut e , 7 5 P a. C .S. § 

### 15 47. Furth e r, O ffi c e r La c km an d id n o t o b t ain a warran t b e fo r e
r e qu e s ti n g th e bl o od draw
. A pp e ll ee w a s arr es te d ar ou n d 5:25 a .m . an d h i s b l ood t e st was no t I . • t5

Th e Wulff Court also found instructive that the Supreme Court of the United States had 1) recently vacated a judgment of sentence in a separate case where the Texas Court of Appeals had found that the state's implied consent statute was an exception to the warrant requirement and 2) remanded the case "for further consideration in light oi 

### Missouri v. McN e ely." Id at 580-81 (citing and quoting Aviles v. State, 134 S.Ct. 902 (2014)). The Wulff Court reasonably interpreted the vacation and remand as foreshadowing that the High Court 

### will find that an impli e d consent statute does not override or satisfy the McNeely test. 1 This Court also finds persuasive the opinion of the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Wulff, 337 P.3d 575 (Idaho 2014). That 

### Wulff Court reasoned that allowing an implied consent statute to s erve as a per se exception to the warrant requirement would render Mcileely hollow. Id at 579- 82. Indeed, the 

### Mcbleely dictate that there must be a true exigency in order for a warrantless, nonconsensual blood test to pass constitutional muster would not count for much if a state's implied consent law sufficed to fill the gap. J, MICHAELE. ERDOS

~ 

# ·~,~;if;• tBY THE COURT: J. _ .... ,.,, .. . Appellee's Writ of Certiorari, and its decision should be affirmed. 

### Myers controls in the instant matter. Accordingly, this Court did not err in granting CONCLUSION: was improperly obtained by the Commonwealth. 1 warrantless blood draw. Thus, based on 

### Myers and the facts presented here, Appellee's blood warrant. Finally, no exigency appears on the record in the instant case that would justify a performed until 6:20 a.m.; an hour had elapsed in which the officer could have obtained a I '