Commonwealth v. Dunne

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Criminal Law

Criminal LawDUISearch and SeizureConsentSufficiency of the Evidenceurine testblood testimplied consent

Facts

Officer DiPalo stopped after seeing appellant's vehicle being operated without headlights and found appellant in the driver's seat exhibiting glassy eyes, staggering, belligerence, and failed field sobriety tests. After a preliminary breath test showed .088, the officer observed rapid mood swings and strange mumbling during transport and requested both blood and urine testing after advising appellant of implied consent; appellant verbally agreed and also signed the hospital consent form. During the blood draw, the officer saw track marks, including a fresh one, and heard appellant admit intravenous narcotics use. The blood test showed .015 alcohol, the urine test showed amphetamines and methamphetamines, and later searches revealed two hypodermic syringes.

Issue

Whether the urine test results had to be suppressed because police requested a second chemical test after appellant had already provided blood, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant was under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree rendering him incapable of safe driving. The case also asked whether expert testimony was necessary to link appellant's symptoms to drug intoxication.

Rule

A second chemical test need not be suppressed in a criminal case when the defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to both tests; valid consent must be unequivocal, specific, and voluntary, assessed under the totality of the circumstances, and proved by the Commonwealth by clear and convincing evidence. To prove DUI by controlled substance, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree rendering him incapable of safe driving. Lay opinion testimony on drug-induced intoxication is admissible, and expert testimony is not required, where the witness personally observed the defendant and a proper foundation shows familiarity with the effects of narcotics.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At 2:00 a.m. in Erie, Officer Lena Ortiz stopped Devin Mercer after watching his pickup drift across the center line. At the hospital, after explaining implied-consent warnings, Ortiz asked Mercer to submit to both a blood test and a urine test; Mercer said, "Yes, I'll do both," and signed a hospital form stating he had been told he could refuse and that the results would be released to police.

In Mercer’s criminal DUI prosecution, he moves to suppress the urine-test result solely because police drew blood first. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a second chemical test in a criminal case need not be suppressed where the defendant expressly and voluntarily consented to both tests. Valid consent must be unequivocal, specific, and voluntary, assessed from the totality of the circumstances, and the Commonwealth must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Here, Mercer verbally agreed to both tests and signed a written form acknowledging his right to refuse and release of results, so suppression should be denied. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Dunne (n.d.).)