PA Court Upholds DUI Stop and Warrantless Blood Draw
Posted in Constitutional Rights,DUI,Fourth Amendment on April 9, 2026
The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Smith reinforces two critical principles in DUI litigation: (1) the relatively low threshold required for police to initiate a DUI stop, and (2) the continued viability of warrantless blood draws based on voluntary consent.
Factual Background
Smith was driving during the early morning hours in Mercer County when she drew the attention of a PA State Trooper by making a wide turn and going into the opposing lane of travel and causing the trooper to brake to avoid a collision. The trooper followed Smith’s vehicle as she parked in what appeared to be a business driveway. The trooper parked behind Smith and activated the police car’s overhead lights to conduct a traffic stop.
During the traffic stop, the trooper noticed general signs of alcohol impairment, including strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, presence of an alcoholic beverage in the vehicle, and uncooperative behavior. Smith exercised her right to refuse to complete field sobriety tests.
The driver was arrested for DUI and transported to a hospital. The trooper read Smith the DL-26 form, which warned Smith that a blood draw refusal would result in the suspension of her PA driving privileges. Smith consented to the blood draw, and testing revealed a blood alcohol level of .274%. Smith was charged with DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802(c) for having a blood alcohol level above a .16%.
Pretrial Motion to Suppress Blood Evidence
Smith’s DUI defense attorney filed a Pretrial Motion to Suppress the blood evidence by arguing:
- The trooper did not have sufficient legal cause of justification to conduct the traffic stop
- The warrantless blood draw violated Smith’s constitutional rights under Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Mercer County Court did not agree with Smith’s arguments and denied suppression. At trial, Smith was convicted of DUI, sentenced to the mandatory jail time, and Smith then filed an appeal to the PA Superior Court.
Appeal of DUI Conviction
The PA Superior Court considered both of Smith’s arguments seeking suppression. With regard to the legality of the traffic stop, the court noted that the police are permitted to conduct a traffic stop if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver committed an investigable violation of the Vehicle Code. Here, based upon Smith’s crossing of the center line and almost striking the trooper’s vehicle, the Court ruled that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to believe that Smith was driving under the influence. Therefore, the stop did not violate Smith’s constitutional rights.
The Court next reviewed Smith’s argument that the police were required to obtain a warrant before requiring her to submit to a blood draw. The Court reiterated that the police are not required to obtain a warrant if a person consents to the search. The Court ruled that Smith had voluntarily consented to the blood draw, so no warrant was needed, and they ruled that consent was not coerced by the reading of the DL-26 form that referenced the suspension of driving privileges for failing to submit to the blood draw. The Court noted that the Birchfield opinion and rationale did not apply because the DL-26 only referenced the license suspension penalties and not criminal penalties. License suspensions are civil and NOT criminal penalties, so they do not invoke the Birchfield ruling. Because the consent was not coerced by unconstitutional threats, the Court held that it was voluntary and valid under the Fourth Amendment.
Impact of Decision
This case reiterates that the police only need reasonable suspicion and not probable cause for an investigable traffic violation such as DUI. The decision also affirms that properly administered warnings that are given by reading the DL-26 does not coerce consent, and a warrant is not required when the driver voluntarily consents to the blood draw.