Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Myers, D.

I respectfully dissent from the resolution reached by the Majority. Unlike the Majority, I conclude that Pennsylvania’s implied consent statute authorized the warrantless blood draw in this case. Furthermore, I cannot agree that the blood draw violated Myers’ Fourth Amendment rights, even in light of the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016).

I begin with the statutory portion of the case. As the Majority correctly observes, Pennsylvania’s implied consent statute provides, in relevant part, as follows.