• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
    • COVID-19 Response
  • Attorneys
    • Richard Cordell Low
    • Matthew A. Grosh
    • Brad Zuke
  • Staff
    • Diane Coyle
    • Susan Dreyer
    • Erin Hirschmann
    • Christina Warfel
    • Jeanna Johnson
  • Blog
  • Articles
  • Contact
Herr & Low Logo

We Take It Personally.

  • PH: 717-397-7544

Birchfield and Blood Draws – New Developments in DUI law

November 21, 2016 by Herr & Low, P.C.

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota deemed warrantless blood draws in driving under the influence arrests unconstitutional. This has far-reaching consequences in Pennsylvania, a so-called “implied consent” state, in which a motorist is deemed to have consented to a test of his blood or breath in the event of a suspected DUI.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s Birchfield decision, anyone stopped for a suspected DUI who refused a blood draw would potentially be subject to increased criminal penalties as if he or she had registered a blood alcohol level of .16% or higher, the highest tier for DUI sentencing purposes. Warnings given to motorists made this clear in advising of their “right” to refusal. In sentencing terms, refusals for a first offense called for a mandatory 72 hours incarceration and a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000. Both minimum and maximum penalties increased dramatically for second and subsequent offenses.

What does this mean for pending DUI charges?

What this means for those with pending DUI charges based on a refusal is somewhat dependent on the county in which he or she lives. As for those cases in which a motorist consented to a blood test after being advised of the penalty for refusal, the Supreme Court left the question of whether this consent was voluntary up to the states. It may be possible to challenge the results of such a test via a suppression motion, which are decided on a case-by-case basis.

Result of the Birchfield Case

Birchfield does not address the enhanced civil penalties that accompany a refusal. In Pennsylvania, a refusal triggers an automatic 18-month license suspension. The Birchfield cases did not challenge these civil penalties, and the Court declined to disturb previous holdings that approved of them. Breath tests, too, were deemed constitutional, as the Court found that such tests do not have the same invasive quality as a blood draw.

Filed Under: Car Accidents, DUI Tagged With: DUI

Reader Interactions

Follow Our Firm

  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow Us On LinkedIn

Primary Sidebar

HOW CAN WE HELP?

Tell Us About Your Legal Issue
  • close
    The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
    Privacy Policy
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Secondary Sidebar

  • Personal injury
    • Personal Injury
    • Premises Liability
    • Negligent Lighting And Security
    • Elevator Injuries
    • Retail Store Accidents
    • Slip and Fall Accidents
    • Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Soft Tissue Injuries
    • Burn Injuries
    • Wrongful Death
    • Car Accidents
    • Fatal Auto Accidents
    • Motorcycle Accidents
    • Motorcycle Accidents: Insurance Issues and Medical Bills
    • Truck Accidents
    • Bicycle Accidents
    • Pedestrian Accidents
    • T-Bone Accidents
    • Bus Accidents
    • Rear-End Collisions
    • Head-On Collisions
    • Taxi Accidents
    • Drunk Driver Accidents
    • Distracted Driving Accidents
  • Worker’s Compensation
    • Worker’s Compensation
    • Work-Related Injuries
    • Construction Accidents
    • Ladder Accidents
    • Scaffolding Accidents
    • Farm Accidents
    • Heavy Equipment And Machinery Accidents
    • Work Vehicle Accidents
  • Business Law
    • Business Law
    • Small Business Formations And Acquisitions
    • Contract Law
  • Nonprofits And Tax-Exempt Organizations
  • Commercial and Residential Real Estate
  • Mediation
  • Estate Planning
    • Estate Planning Law
    • Becoming A Power Of Attorney For Elderly Parents
    • Estate Administration
    • Probate Litigation

Herr & Low, P.C.
234 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Phone: 717-397-7544
Fax: 717-397-8227
Lancaster Law Office Map

Attorneys

Richard Cordell Low
rlow@herrlow.com

Matthew A. Grosh
mgrosh@herrlow.com

Brad Zuke
brad@herrlow.com

Herr & Low Logo

We Take It Personally.

Herr & Low, P.C., represents clients throughout central Pennsylvania, including individuals, families and businesses in Lancaster, Manheim Township, Ephrata, Lititz, Elizabethtown, Gap, Millersville, Columbia, Manheim and Strasburg, as well as clients in communities in Lancaster County, York County, Chester County, Dauphin County and Lebanon County.
Copyright ©2021 Herr & Low, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer Site Map Privacy Policy