Commonwealth v. Redman, R.

191 A.3d 747

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Whether the Superior Court's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court decision by holding in the instant case that a warrantless legal blood draw can be administered on an unconscious driver where the police officer has the sole determination of probable cause to arrest the driver which is in direct conflict with the holding of the published opinion in Commonwealth v. Myers, 7 EAP 2016, which required a search warrant?

2. Whether the Superior Court holding in the instant case conflicts with the US Supreme Court decisions in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013), Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 , and Frost et. al. v. Railroad Commission of State of California 271 U.S. 583 , 46 S.Ct. 605 , 70 S.Ct. 1101 by stating in the instant case that because Appellant drove on this Commonwealth's roads, that this Commonwealth's Implied Consent Statute 75 PACSA 1547 combined with 75 PACSA 3755 allowing for medical personal to take blood draws, allows for a warrantless legal blood draw which is in direct conflict with the US Supreme Court?

3. Whether 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3755 which allows for the warrantless taking of a legal blood draw by medical personal once they determine there is probable cause is unconstitutional as it violates a Defendant's constitutional right against a warrantless seizure in light of the holdings in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) and Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 ?