Court Opinion

ID: 9377023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 17:08:23.906527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.260777
License: Public Domain

J-A23018-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    TODD ANTHONY GRACEY                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 801 MDA 2021

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 16, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                           CP-67-CR-0003213-2018

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                           FILED: MARCH 6, 2023

        Todd Anthony Gracey (Appellant) appeals from the June 16, 2021,

judgment of sentence entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas after

a jury convicted him of multiple offenses, including homicide by vehicle while

driving under the influence (DUI), homicide by vehicle, and two counts of DUI

(general impairment and highest rate of alcohol).1 On appeal, he argues the

trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw.

We affirm.

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3735(a), 3732(a), 3802(a)(1), (c).
J-A23018-22

       Appellant’s convictions stem from a single motor vehicle accident2 that

occurred on October 1, 2017, at approximately 7:00 p.m., on a “straight”

portion of Blooming Grove Road in Cordorus Township, York County,

Pennsylvania.      See N.T. at 13, 16.         Pennsylvania State Trooper Thomas

Stevenson arrived on the scene and observed a red Chevrolet truck with heavy

damage, upside down, and blocking the lane of travel.3 Id. at 14. The trooper

saw the driver, Appellant, and a female passenger, who was pronounced

deceased at the scene, being extricated from the vehicle by emergency

responders. Id. Because of his injuries, Appellant was immediately flown to

York Hospital for medical treatment. Id. at 23. The trooper did not have the

opportunity to talk to or observe Appellant at the scene. Id. at 15. He did

____________________________________________

2 The tire marks on the road revealed the vehicle “traveled abruptly from the
right lane to the left lane before it left the roadway and struck a tree[.]” N.T.,
8/28/18, at 16.

3 Trooper Stevenson subsequently spoke with a witness that was traveling in
the opposite direction of Appellant. See N.T. at 18. The witness stated “the
involved vehicle swerved abruptly across the road from the right lane to the
left lane where it struck the trees and went up the embankment and rolled . .
. approximately twice before landing on its roof.” Id. Another witness told
the trooper:

       [T]he involved vehicle was behind her and . . . that this vehicle
       was tailgating her so closely that she could not see the head
       lamps. [The witness] also related that the vehicle was weaving
       and the actions of the driver caused concern for her and her kids,
       so she actually pulled off the road to allow the operator to pass.

Id. at 18-19.

                                           -2-
J-A23018-22

recall seeing “beer cans strewn across the crash scene and . . . some beer

cans inside the vehicle[,]” and “[s]ome of the beer cans were still in koozies.”

Id. at 17.

       At the hospital, employees obtained a sample of Appellant’s blood.4 Two

days after the incident, Trooper Stevenson requested a search warrant

seeking the “legal blood belong to [Appellant] drawn by York Hospital Staff as

part o[f] normal emergency procedures.” Application for Search Warrant &

Authorization (Search Warrant), 10/3/17, at 1 (unpaginated). Attached to the

search warrant was the affidavit of probable cause, which provided the

following information:

             On 10/01/17, I was working routine patrol in marked patrol
       vehicle H7-03. I was dispatched to a crash that occurred at
       approximately [7:11 p.m.] on 8261 Blooming Grove Rd, just east
       of Glenville R[oad .] Upon my arrival to scene, the operator was
       being assisted by medical personnel, but he was identified as
       [Appellant]. Due to the seriousness of [Appellant]’s injuries and
       because he was immediately taken from the scene and flown to
       York Hospital for treatment, I was not able to have a real
       conversation with [him]. The passenger in the vehicle was
       pronounced deceased on [the] scene.

             I observed the vehicle [Appellant] was driving to be a red
       Chevrolet Silverado[.] The Silverado was currently sitting upside
       down on its roof blocking the westbound lane of travel. The roof
       was severely caved in especially on the passenger’s side of the
       vehicle and the vehicle had sustained serious damage throughout.
       While on scene, I observed numerous Bud Light cans scattered
       across the crash scene. Inside the vehicle, I observed numerous
____________________________________________

4The record does not indicate the reason why the hospital collected the blood
sample. Nevertheless, no one disputes the fact that hospital personnel
performed the blood draw before receiving a request from Trooper Stevenson.

                                           -3-
J-A23018-22

        Bud Light cans scattered throughout the vehicle, including some
        Bud Light cans still in koozies.

              [Another state trooper] responded to the York Hospital to
        request a blood draw from [Appellant], but [he] was currently
        intubated. As part of [Appellant]’s treatment the York Hospital
        Staff drew Legal Blood from [him] as a part of normal emergency
        procedures.

              Based upon the foregoing, your affiant has probable cause
        to believe that [Appellant] was operating a motor vehicle under
        the influence of . . . alcohol.

              Your affiant requests a search warrant to seize [Appellant]’s
        blood from the York Hospital Laboratory to submit to NMS Labs
        for toxicological testing in order to determine the presence and or
        level of any impairing substance, i.e. alcohol and or drugs
        contained therein.

Id. at 2 (unpaginated).         A magisterial district judge granted the search

warrant that same day. See id. at 1. The warrant was then executed, and

Appellant’s blood was submitted for testing.      See N.T. at 21.    The results

revealed that Appellant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was .243%. Id.

        Appellant was charged with homicide by vehicle while DUI, homicide by

vehicle, DUI (general impairment — first offense), DUI (highest rate of alcohol

— first offense), recklessly endangering another person (REAP),5 driving on

roadways laned for traffic, following too closely, driving vehicle at a safe

____________________________________________

5   18 Pa.C.S. § 2705.

                                           -4-
J-A23018-22

speed, careless driving, careless driving resulting in unintentional death,

reckless driving, and failure to use restraint system.6

       On July 30, 2018, Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion, seeking

suppression of the blood test results.           Specifically, he claimed the search

warrant “lacked the requisite probable cause” and Trooper Stevenson “failed

to articulate any facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that

[Appellant] had been driving under the influence at the time of the motor

vehicle accident.” Appellant’s Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion for the Suppression

of Evidence (Motion to Suppress), 7/27/18, at 2, 4. Moreover, he argued:

       14. In the current case, the Affidavit of Probable [C]ause merely
       indicate[d] there was a motor vehicle crash, identifie[d]
       [Appellant] as the operator, and that there were numerous Bud
       Light cans scattered across the crash scene and scattered
       throughout the vehicle.

       15. There [was] no description of the manner in which [Appellant]
       was operating the vehicle prior to the accident.

       16. No information regarding the crash scene [was] provided
       indicating what the conditions and road conditions were at the
       time of the accident or if the accident occurred where there was a
       sharp curve.

       17. The officer [did] not indicate whether there was an odor of
       alcohol coming from [Appellant]’s person or from within the
       vehicle itself.

       18. No information [was] provided to indicate whether emergency
       personnel that were assisting [Appellant] on scene detected the
       odor of alcohol upon [his] breath, person, or clothing.
____________________________________________

6 75 Pa.C.S.        §§   3309(1),      3310(a),    3361,   3714(a),   (b),   3736(a),
4581(a)(2)(ii).

                                           -5-
J-A23018-22

       19. There [was] no mention that any of the Bud Light cans found
       on scene or within the vehicle were open and/or empty.

Id. at 3-4 (unpaginated).

       The trial court held a suppression hearing on August 28, 2018.           The

Commonwealth presented the testimony of Trooper Stevenson.                  At the

conclusion of the proceeding, the court made the following determination:

       . . . I have read and received this affidavit of probable cause . . .,
       I believe that constitutes probable cause sufficient for the issuance
       of the search warrant.

              [Appellant] was the driver of a motor vehicle that ran into a
       tree in York County, PA. Scattered throughout the vehicle inside
       and out were a number of beer cans, some of which were empty,
       half full, certainly some of them had been opened, and two of
       them had koozies around them. And if I had come upon that
       scene and seen that, I would say that driver was probably under
       the influence of alcohol.

N.T. at 32. That same day, the court entered an order denying Appellant’s

motion to suppress.

       The matter than proceeded to a jury trial, and on April 30, 2021, the

jury   returned   a   verdict   of   guilty   on   all   above-mentioned   charges.

Subsequently, on June 16, 2021, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of

three to six years’ incarceration for the homicide by vehicle while DUI

conviction, and a concurrent term of one to two years’ imprisonment for the

                                        -6-
J-A23018-22

homicide by vehicle offense.7 Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion

but did file this timely appeal.8

       Appellant raises the following claim for our review:

       Whether the application for a search warrant seeking the blood of
       . . . Appellant contained insufficient information within its four
       corners to support a finding of probable cause?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant asserts the October 3, 2017,

search warrant “contained insufficient information to support a determination

of probable cause.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. He alleges the “application was

woefully incomplete and vague” and “incorrectly relied upon information

elicited outside of the four corners of the warrant.” Id. Moreover, he states

the affidavit of probable cause lacked “a determination of probable cause that

any crime occurred, including, but not limited to, the offense of driving under

the influence of alcohol.” Id. at 14. He points to the following to support his

argument: (1) there was “no information provided regarding the nature and

cause of the . . . accident[;]” (2) Trooper Stevenson did not provide any

information regarding “the possible impaired driving of the operator” where

____________________________________________

7The two DUI convictions merged for sentencing purposes, and the court did
not impose any further penalty with respect to his remaining convictions.

8 Appellant complied with the trial court’s directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On September 14, 2021,
the court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

                                           -7-
J-A23018-22

the affidavit “merely suggest[ed] that the [t]rooper was dispatched to a crash

that had occurred[;]” (3) the affidavit did not address “the actions, inaction[,]

or the possible impairment of” Appellant; (4) the trooper failed “to describe

any observations from law enforcement, first responders[,] or other witnesses

that would be consistent with possible impairment including, but not limited

to, the smell of alcohol, bloodshot or glass eyes, etc[;]” and (5) the trooper

failed “to identify a witness to the accident, [Appellant]’s driving prior to the

accident or even a remote assertion regarding the possible cause of the

accident.” Id. at 14-15.

      Appellant further contends that the “only factual averment . . . that

could remotely suggest the possession or use of alcohol is the Trooper’s

statement” regarding the numerous Bud Light cans at the accident scene.

Appellant’s Brief at 15. Nevertheless, Appellant submits this evidence carries

little weight because “there [was] absolutely zero information provided

regarding the age and/or relevant condition of said cans” and there was “no

indication whether the cans were open, full, and/or warm or cold.” Id. at 16.

He avers: “Based upon the scant averments of the affidavit of probable cause,

the beer cans at issue, even under an average, common-sense reading, could

have been present in or around the Chevy Silverado for weeks, if not months,

to this accident.” Id.

      Appellant also argues that the trial court failed to limit its review to the

four corners of the search warrant by considering the “testimony of the

                                      -8-
J-A23018-22

[trooper] regarding facts and circumstances not present within the warrant,

which the court deemed ‘credible[.]’” Appellant’s Brief at 16. He references

the court’s statements at the suppression hearing regarding his truck hitting

the tree and the presence of the beer cans. Id. at 17 n.1. Lastly, Appellant

contends that since he “was never provided implied consent warnings nor did

he ever voluntarily consent to a blood test[, t]he need for a warrant to extract

and/or obtain his blood was absolute and conditioned upon a specific showing

that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would

be contained within the [blood].”     Id. at 18.   He concludes that since the

assertions made by Trooper Stevenson were “nothing more than speculation

and guesswork[,]” the warrant was improper and the seizure of his blood a

“privacy intrusion[.]” Id.

      When reviewing suppression decisions, our standard of review is limited.

             When reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress
      evidence, we must determine whether the evidence of record
      supports the factual findings of the trial court. In making this
      determination, this Court may only consider the Commonwealth’s
      evidence and the defendant’s evidence that remains
      uncontradicted. We view the Commonwealth’s evidence, not as a
      layperson, but through the eyes of a trained police officer. We do
      not review the evidence piecemeal, but consider the totality of the
      circumstances in assessing whether probable cause existed.
      Additionally, it is exclusively within the province of the trial court
      to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be
      accorded their testimony. If the evidence supports the findings of
      the trial court, those findings bind us and we may reverse only if
      the suppression court drew erroneous legal conclusions from the
      evidence.

                                      -9-
J-A23018-22

Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583, 584-85 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(quotation omitted).   “It is within the suppression court’s sole province as

factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given

their testimony.” Id. at 585 (citation omitted).

      The seizure and testing of a person’s blood constitutes a search. See

Commonwealth v. Trahey, 228 A.3d 520, 530 (Pa. 2020). “[W]here a blood

draw is conducted for medical purposes, and the results of the blood test are

obtained after proper execution of a search warrant, the results of the blood

draw are admissible in the prosecution of a DUI defendant.” Commonwealth

v. Miller, 996 A.2d 508, 513 (Pa. Super. 2010). Here, as mentioned above,

Trooper Stevenson requested and was granted a warrant to seize Appellant’s

blood sample.

      As Appellant’s argument pertains to the validity of the search warrant,

we are guided by the following:

      The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
      commands that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
      persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
      searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
      issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
      and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
      persons or things to be seized.”         U.S. CONST. amend IV.
      Similarly, Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
      provides that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons,
      houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and
      seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any
      person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as
      may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or
      affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.” PA. CONST. art. I, § 8.

                                    - 10 -
J-A23018-22

           A search warrant may issue only upon a demonstration of
     probable cause by an affiant. See generally Commonwealth v.
     Gary, . . . 91 A.3d 102, 107 (Pa. 2014). The existence of probable
     cause is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances.
     Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 . . . (1983). “Probable cause
     exists where the facts and circumstances within the affiant’s
     knowledge and of which he [or she] has reasonably trustworthy
     information are sufficient in and of themselves to warrant a
     [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that a search should
     be conducted.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, . . . 42 A.3d 1017,
     1031 (Pa. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

           A magisterial district judge, when deciding whether to issue
     a search warrant, must “make a practical, common-sense decision
     whether, given all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit .
     . . including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons
     supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that
     contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
     place.” Id. (citation omitted). Conversely, “[a] court reviewing a
     search warrant determines only if a substantial basis existed for
     the magistrate to find probable cause.” Id. (citation omitted). We
     also note that there is a strict particularity requirement in Article
     I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution that “a warrant must
     describe the items as specifically as is reasonably possible.”
     Commonwealth v. Grossman, . . . 555 A.2d 896, 899 (Pa.
     1989); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 205(2) (requiring all search
     warrants to “identify specifically the property to be seized”); id.
     at 205(3) (requiring all search warrants to “name or describe with
     particularity the person or place to be searched”).

Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1081-82 (Pa. 2017) (paragraph

break added).

     In terms of probable cause, we recognize:

     “Probable cause does not involve certainties, but rather ‘the
     factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which
     reasonable and prudent men act.’” Commonwealth v. Wright,
     . . . 867 A.2d 1265, 1268 (Pa. Super.2005) (quoting
     Commonwealth v. Romero, . . . 673 A.2d 374, 376 ([Pa.
     Super.] 1996)). “It is only the probability and not a prima facie
     showing of criminal activity that is a standard of probable cause.”
     Commonwealth v. Monaghan, 441 A.2d 1318 ([Pa. Super.]

                                    - 11 -
J-A23018-22

      1982) (citation omitted). See also . . . Gates, 462 U.S. [at] 238
      . . . (holding that probable cause means “a fair probability that
      contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.”);
      Commonwealth v. Lindblom, 854 A.2d 604, 607 (Pa. Super.
      2004) (reciting that probable cause exists when criminality is one
      reasonable inference, not necessarily even the most likely
      inference). . . .

Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 528 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2015)

(quotation omitted). Additionally, “[t]he Supreme Court of the United States

has instructed that after-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an

affidavit should not take the form of de novo review. Indeed, a magistrate’s

probable cause determination should receive deference from the reviewing

courts.” Commonwealt v. Leed, 186 A.3d 405, 413 (Pa. 2018) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted).

      In finding there was probable cause to support the search warrant, the

trial court recited the affidavit of probable cause and opined:

             A common sense assessment of all these circumstances set
      forth in the affidavit supports the conclusions that [Appellant] was
      the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, and that he was
      driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
      Therefore, and giving deference to the magistrate, there was a
      fair probability that evidence that [Appellant] was driving while
      under the influence of alcohol would be found in [his] blood. . . .

Trial Ct. Op., 9/14/21, at 4-5.

      Our review of the certified record leads us to agree with the trial court

that the affidavit, as a whole, provided the magistrate district judge with

sufficient information to conclude there was a reasonable probability evidence

from Appellant’s blood would reveal he was driving under the influence. As

                                     - 12 -
J-A23018-22

set forth in the Search Warrant, Trooper Stevenson was dispatched to a crash

that occurred on Blooming Grove Road.             See Search Warrant at 2

(unpaginated).   The vehicle at issue was “sitting upside down on its roof

blocking the westbound lane of travel[,] with “the roof was severely caved in

especially on the passenger’s side of the vehicle and the vehicle had sustained

serious damage throughout.”      Id.     The trooper observed Appellant being

pulled from the driver’s side and due to the seriousness of his injuries, he was

flown to the hospital. Id. The passenger was pronounced dead at the scene.

Id. Trooper Stevenson further “observed numerous Bud Light cans scattered

across the crash scene [and] throughout the vehicle, including some Bud Light

cans still in koozies.” Id. As such, even though Trooper Stevenson did not

witness the crash or observe Appellant’s condition at the scene, “the factual

and practical considerations” within the trooper’s knowledge are sufficient in

themselves to warrant an individual of “reasonable caution in the belief” that

Appellant may have been driving under the influence of alcohol and that a

blood draw was necessary. See Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1081-82; Jones, 121

A.3d at 528 n.5. We reiterate: “It is only the probability and not a prima facie

showing of criminal activity that is a standard of probable cause.” Monaghan,

441 A.2d at 1320 (citation omitted).

      Moreover, with respect to the state of the crash site and the beer cans

found on the ground and in the truck, Appellant asks this Court to apply a

hypertechnical approach and ignore the evidence because there was no

                                       - 13 -
J-A23018-22

information in the search warrant as to the cause of the accident, “the age

and/or relevant condition” of the cans, and “whether the cans were open, full,

and/or warm or cold.” Appellant’s Brief at 14, 16. We decline to do so. We

emphasize that the issuance of a search warrant is based on a “practical,

common-sense decision whether, given all of the circumstances set forth in

the affidavit . . . including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons

supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or

evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Jacoby, 170 A.3d at

1082 (citation omitted).

      Here, the issuing judge authorized the search warrant based on

reasonable inferences, including the fact that there were numerous beer cans

in the truck, which indicated consumption from a practical standpoint.

Moreover, it is evident from a “common sense” reading of these facts that

there was a fair probability that Appellant was under the influence of alcohol

when he drove his vehicle on the early evening of October 1, 2017.       See

Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1082. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, there is no

evidence to suggest the issuing judge reviewed information outside of the

search warrant.    Rather, Appellant references statements made at the

suppression hearing, but that evidence was not before the magistrate judge

at the time the warrant was issued.

      Furthermore, Appellant’s assertion that he never voluntarily consented

to the blood test or was provided implied consent warnings is unavailing as

                                      - 14 -
J-A23018-22

the hospital personal performed the blood draw for medical purposes — it was

not done at the behest of investigating officers. Rather, the blood test result

was provided to the police only after Trooper Stevenson obtained the warrant.

See Commonwealth v. Seibert, 799 A.2d 54, 63 (Pa. Super. 2002)

(“[B]ecause the hospital did not withdraw [the defendant’s] blood at the

direction of [the police,] this search did not implicate [the defendant’s] Fourth

Amendment rights. Rather, the hospital withdrew [the defendant’s] blood on

its own initiative for its own purposes.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the

trial court did not err in determining there was a substantial basis for the

magisterial district judge to find that Trooper Stevenson’s search warrant and

affidavit of probable cause included information sufficient to establish probable

cause.9 See Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1082. Therefore, Appellant is entitled to

no relief.

____________________________________________

9 It merits mention that in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated:
“Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Jones-Williams, 237 A.3d 528 (Pa. Super.
2020) [(Jones-Williams I)], which was decided after the [August 28, 2018,]
suppression hearing in the instant case, ‘[75 Pa.C.S. §] 3755(a) and its
counterpart, [75 Pa.C.S. §] 1547(a), no longer serve as independent
exceptions to the warrant requirement.’ Id. at 537.” Trial Ct. Op. at 2.

      We acknowledge that Jones-Williams I is distinguishable from the
present matter because Trooper Stevenson did procure a warrant before
seizing Appellant’s blood. Nonetheless, we further note the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court recently issued a decision, which overturned, in part, this
Court’s decision. See Commonwealth v. Jones-Williams, 279 A.3d 508,
514 (Pa. 2022) (Jones-Williams II).

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 15 -
J-A23018-22

____________________________________________

       Pursuant to Section 3755 of the Motor Vehicle Code, “governmental
officials may obtain an individual’s blood test results if, after a motor vehicle
accident, the driver requires emergency medical treatment and there is
probable cause to believe that a DUI violation occurred.” Jones-Williams I,
237 A.3d at 535. Under Section 1547, or the implied consent statute, a
motorist “shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical
tests of breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content
of blood or the presence of a controlled substance if a police officer has
reasonable grounds to believe” that the motorist has committed a DUI offense.
75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a).

       In Jones-Williams I, the defendant’s car collided with a train and the
driver was transported to the hospital. Jones-Williams I, 237 A.3d at 531.
First responders informed investigating officers that the defendant smelled of
marijuana. Id. When police went to the hospital, the defendant was
unconscious and therefore, they could not obtain his consent to perform a
blood draw. Id. at 532. Nevertheless, they learned hospital personnel had
drawn blood for medical purposes, and without first obtaining a warrant, they
requested the hospital provide a blood sample for testing. Id. The defendant
filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied because it found the
test results were admissible under the exigent circumstances exception,
regardless of Sections 3755 or 1547. Id. However, in its Rule 1925(a)
opinion, the court determined its original finding of exigency was improper.
Id. at 533.

       On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying
his motion to suppress because: (1) the Commonwealth failed to comply with
Section 3755(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code; (2) even if it did comply with that
statute, statutory compliance alone was insufficient to overcome the warrant
requirement; and (3) there were no exigent circumstances here to justify a
warrantless search. Jones-Williams I, 237 A.3d at 533-34. A panel of this
Court agreed with the trial court, concluding there were no exigent
circumstances since the blood evidence had been preserved and “literally
stopped the clock on any concern that the further passage of time could result
in dissipation of evidence since the withdrawal of [the defendant]’s blood by
hospital personnel ceased all metabolic activity that might influence a
toxicological assessment of the sample.” Id. at 544. Moreover, the panel
held that in light of Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)
(holding, in part, that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits warrantless blood tests), and Commonwealth v. Myers, 164 A.3d
1162 (Pa. 2017) (holding that the language of Section 1547 does not
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 16 -
J-A23018-22

____________________________________________

constitute an independent exception to the warrant requirement under both
the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions), “Section 3755(a) and its
counterpart, Section 1547(a), no longer serve as independent exceptions to
the warrant requirement. As such, the search of [the defendant]’s blood test
results violated the Fourth Amendment [to] the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Jones-Williams I, 237
A.3d at 537. The panel concluded the trial court erred by not granting the
defendant’s motion to suppress. Id. at 546.

      The Commonwealth filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted to address issues of the exigency
exception and the constitutionality of Section 3755. Jones-Williams II, 279
A.3d at 514. The Supreme Court first noted that this Court “correctly
recognized that [t]he blood draw by hospital personnel did not trigger
protections under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8 because
there is no evidence that hospital personnel acted at the direction of the police
or as an agent of the police.” Jones-Williams II, 279 A.3d at 515 (citation
and quotation marks omitted). As for the issue concerning the exigency
exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court agreed with this
Court and concluded:

       At the time of that seizure, the blood was already drawn,
       preserved, and the evidence therein no longer dissipating.
       Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence that the drawn
       and preserved blood would be lost or destroyed within the time it
       would take to obtain a warrant, there were no exigent
       circumstances to justify the warrantless seizure.        No such
       alternative theory of exigency exists here, as both [investigating
       officers] conceded that they could have obtained a warrant.

Id. at 518 (footnote omitted). Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed this
Court’s ultimate disposition, which reversed the trial court’s order denying
suppression.

       Regarding the constitutionality of Section 3755, the Supreme Court
stated that this Court “could only reach that constitutional assessment having
first concluded that the Commonwealth complied with Section 3755.” Jones-
Williams II, 279 A.3d at 519. The Supreme Court indicated there was no
evidence to support the conclusion that the police officer attempted to obtain
the blood pursuant to Section 3755. Id. at 520 (the officer completed the
request for the hospital to transfer the blood sample to the police laboratory
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 17 -
J-A23018-22

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/06/2023

____________________________________________

pursuant to Section 1547). Therefore, the Court opined: “Because the record
does not establish that Section 3755 applied under these circumstances, the
subsequent analysis of the statute’s constitutionality should not be
addressed.” Id. As a result, the Court vacated the portion of this Court’s
holding deeming Section 3755 unconstitutional. Id.

      Turning to the present matter, the trial court’s reliance on Jones-
Williams I, for the notion that Section 3755 may not serve as an independent
exception to the warrant requirement, is misplaced as that determination has
been reversed by Jones-Williams II. As of this writing, the constitutionality
of Section 3755 remains intact.

                                          - 18 -