PA Court Upholds DUI Conviction After “Welfare Check” on Highway Ramp

Posted in DUI on August 10, 2025

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s June 28, 2024 decision in Commonwealth v. Joshua W. Ward (2024 PA Super 133) highlights how a DUI arrest in Pennsylvania can result from a routine welfare check under the community caretaking doctrine. The case reaffirms that officers can approach and detain a driver without a warrant if they have objective reasons to believe the driver needs assistance.

Case Background

At approximately 10:53 p.m., Pennsylvania State Troopers saw a vehicle stopped on the shoulder of a highway ramp. The engine was running, the driver’s door was open, and the driver appeared to be vomiting. The troopers pulled behind the stopped car, activated their emergency lights, and approached to check on the driver’s welfare. Ward admitted he had been throwing up and was sweating heavily.

From the passenger side, a trooper saw a pill container in the door and smelled marijuana. Ward admitted to smoking earlier that day. The pill container contained marijuana leaves, leading the troopers to transition the encounter from a welfare check to a DUI investigation. Ward was charged with:

Suppression Motion

Ward argued that he was subjected to an investigative detention, the detention was unawful because the troopers did not have reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity, and the detention was not justified under the public servant exception to the community caretaking doctrine. He claimed the troopers quickly began a criminal investigation without providing actual aid.

The Chester County trial court denied the motion, finding the stop justified under the public servant exception. Ward was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 84 months in prison for DUI and one year probation for the paraphernalia charge. Ward appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Public Servant Exception

For a seizure to be justified under the public servant exception:

  1. the officer must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that assistance was needed;
  2. the police action must be independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence; and
  3. based on a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the action taken by police must be tailored to rendering assistance or mitigating the peril.

Once assistance has been provided or the peril mitigated, further police action will be evaluated under traditional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The actions by the police should be “motivated by a desire to render aid or assistance, rather than the investigation of criminal activity” and “the level of intrusion must be commensurate with the perceived need for assistance.

Superior Court Decision

The Superior Court affirmed, holding:

  1. Troopers had specific, objective facts—a stopped vehicle, open door, and apparent illness—indicating Ward might need assistance.

  2. The initial approach was independent of criminal investigation and focused on rendering aid.

  3. The officers’ actions were proportionate to the perceived need.

Once marijuana odor and evidence appeared, the welfare check lawfully transitioned into a criminal investigation.

Key Takeaways for Pennsylvania Drivers

Experienced State College DUI Attorney

State College DUI lawyer Jason Dunkle obtained suppression of evidence in a DUI case in which the police made a warrantless entry into the client’s residence after arguing that the entry was justified under the emergency aid exception.  The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that the warrantless entry violated the client’s constitutional rights and suppressed all evidence.  For more info about the case, click here.

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.