I refused a blood test – Can the prosecutor use that as evidence in my DUI trial?
Posted in DUI on June 29, 2025
If you are charged with DUI in Pennsylvania, you may wonder whether your refusal to submit to a blood test can be used as evidence against you at trial. The short answer: yes, it can.
In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Bell, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirmed that police and prosecutors are permitted to introduce evidence of a DUI suspect’s refusal to submit to chemical testing — such as a blood draw — at trial. This ruling has significant implications for anyone facing DUI charges in Centre County and throughout the Commonwealth.
What Happened in Commonwealth v. Bell?
Thomas Bell was arrested for DUI in Lycoming County after being stopped for a traffic violation. At the DUI processing center, he refused to submit to a blood test, reportedly because of a previous negative medical experience with needles. Prosecutors later used his refusal as evidence during his trial for general impairment DUI.
Bell challenged this, arguing that introducing evidence of his refusal violated his rights under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution — both of which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The trial court initially sided with Bell, finding that under recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, particularly Birchfield v. North Dakota, motorists have a constitutional right to refuse warrantless blood testing, and that evidence of such refusal could not be used against them.
But the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed that decision, and the case ultimately made its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
What Did the PA Supreme Court Decide?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Section 1547(e) of the Vehicle Code — which allows evidence of a refusal to be introduced at trial — is constitutional.
The Court reasoned that:
While a warrant is generally required for a blood draw, Pennsylvania’s Implied Consent Law means that by choosing to drive on Pennsylvania roads, motorists agree to either submit to chemical testing or face certain consequences if they refuse.
The consequences for refusing a blood test can include civil penalties, such as a driver’s license suspension, and the admission of refusal evidence at trial.
The Court drew a clear distinction between criminal penalties for refusal (which are unconstitutional under Birchfield) and evidentiary consequences, like introducing refusal evidence, which remain lawful.
The Court also emphasized that introducing refusal evidence helps juries understand why no blood alcohol content (BAC) evidence is presented and allows the defendant to explain the refusal.
What This Means for You
If you’re pulled over for suspected DUI in State College or anywhere in Pennsylvania, refusing a chemical test might seem like a way to protect yourself. However, even if the police don’t forcibly obtain a blood sample, your refusal can still be used against you in court.
This makes navigating DUI charges extremely complicated. Not only are you facing potential license suspension and fines for refusal, but prosecutors can use your refusal to argue that you knew you were impaired.
Protect Your Rights — Hire an Experienced DUI Attorney
DUI laws in Pennsylvania are complex, and recent court rulings have only added to the confusion. If you’ve been charged with DUI or refused chemical testing, you need an experienced State College DUI defense attorney to fight for your rights.
Attorney Jason Dunkle has successfully defended countless DUI cases in Centre County. He understands how to challenge DUI evidence, including refusal evidence, and will guide you through this stressful process.
For a free case review, contact JD Law by email or leave a message at (814) 689-9139. Email is the preferred method of communication, as phone calls are directed to voicemail due to the high volume of spam and unsolicited calls.