PA Court Reverses DUI Conviction Over Blood Draw Consent Issue
Posted in General on June 29, 2025
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has once again reinforced the importance of protecting drivers’ constitutional rights during DUI investigations. In the decision of Commonwealth v. Krenzel, No. 2049 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2019), the court reversed a Chester County woman’s DUI conviction after finding that police failed to properly advise her of her right to refuse a warrantless blood draw.
Case Background — DUI Stop and Blood Test
In November 2016, Krenzel was stopped by police in Chester County after a motorist reported her erratic driving. Officers observed signs of intoxication, including:
Glassy, bloodshot eyes
Slurred and sluggish speech
Slow movements
The odor of alcohol
Officers also discovered two beer bottles inside her vehicle. Krenzel consented to field sobriety tests, which indicated impairment, and subsequently agreed to a blood test. She was charged with DUI – Highest Rate of Alcohol, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c).
The Legal Issue — Was Her Consent to the Blood Test Truly Voluntary?
Before trial, Krenzel sought to suppress the blood test results, arguing that her consent was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. Her key argument focused on:
A prior 2013 DUI arrest, during which she was told that refusal to submit to a blood test would result in enhanced criminal penalties.
Although the law changed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), Krenzel was never updated about those changes. The change was that a person could not be subjected to increased criminal penalties for refusing a blood test unless the police first obtained a warrant.
During her 2016 DUI stop, police did not advise her of her right to refuse the blood test or the consequences of refusal, as required by Pennsylvania’s implied consent law (75 Pa.C.S. § 1547).
Despite these facts, the trial court denied her suppression motion and convicted her following a bench trial.
Superior Court Ruling — Police Failed to Follow the Law
The Pennsylvania Superior Court disagreed with the trial court and reversed the conviction, highlighting several critical legal points:
✅ Police must inform a DUI suspect of their right to refuse chemical testing, along with the potential consequences of refusal, under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code.
✅ The subjective misunderstanding of a suspect regarding the law does not automatically invalidate consent. However, police must still comply with their duty to provide legally required warnings.
✅ In Krenzel’s case, officers failed to provide the proper advisement, meaning her consent was not knowing and voluntary.
In order to provide the required information, the police read the DL-26B form that expressly tells a driver of the right to refuse BUT the refusal will result in a suspension of PA driving privileges.
The Court ruled that the blood draw was unconstitutional under these circumstances, and therefore, the results of that test should have been suppressed.
Why This Case Matters for Pennsylvania Drivers
This case serves as a reminder that:
DUI suspects have the right to refuse blood testing, but they must be properly informed of that right.
Police cannot bypass constitutional protections by simply asking for “consent” without explaining the legal consequences.
Even experienced drivers, including those with prior DUI arrests, are entitled to clear and updated legal warnings during every police encounter.
For those facing DUI charges in Pennsylvania, this case highlights the importance of reviewing the legality of every aspect of the police stop, investigation, and testing process.
Charged with DUI? Protect Your Rights with Experienced Legal Representation
A DUI conviction in Pennsylvania can lead to harsh penalties, including jail time, license suspension, and significant fines. However, not every DUI arrest is legally valid, especially when police fail to properly inform suspects of their rights.
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.