Legal Updates

New Case Law Renders Blood Results Inadmissible

The case law in Pennsylvania has changed.  Traditionally, blood results of a drivers .BAC (blood alcohol content) were admissible at trial.  The evidence was often devastating to defendants as it proved to a degree of scientific certainty the defendant was intoxicated.  However, recent case law has rendered virtually all .BAC results taken with O’Connell Warnings inadmissible.  O’Connell Warnings are a statement the police provide to defendants before they give blood.  The statement informs the defendant if they do not provide a blood sample they may face a criminal penalty.

In the seminal case Birchfield v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court ruled that blood samples are implicated under the Fourth Amendment.  Therefore, blood results cannot be taken without a warrant.  They also cannot be taken under threat of criminal penalty.  This breakthrough case rendered Pennsylvania’s normal mode of blood taking illegal.  Consequently, hundreds of cases in Philadelphia are being subjected to the higher Supreme Court standard.

Recently, the Law Office of Mark D. Copoulos obtained a victory for a defendant whose blood was seized under the old law.  The court suppressed the defendant’s blood evidence under a Birchfield motion.  The case law is so definitive that the Office of the District Attorney did not contest the motion.  Defendant won his case in large part because of new case law that renders blood results inadmissible in specific situations.

If you were arrested for a DUI in the last year, and your case has not gone to trial, contact Mark D. Copoulos.  We will set up a free consultation to ascertain whether the evidence can be suppressed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution or Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.  Know your rights.  Do not plead guilty or accept an expensive program if the state’s evidence can be challenged.

Call now for a free consultation: 267-535-9776.