Commonwealth v. Baker, 2011 Pa. Super. 239 (2011)

Baker was stopped while driving because he was weaving and tailgating another car.  When the officer approached him, the defendant had trouble keeping eye-contact, smelled strongly of oven-grease, and seemed verbally combative.  Specifically, he referred to the officer as a "dirty cop."  When the officer asked the defendant to perform field-sobriety tests, he failed.

The officer took Baker to a hospital for blood-testing.  The defendant refused, however, and explained that he was a "brittle" diabetic, and was unwilling to undergo a blood-draw because previous needle-sticks had caused infections.  Instead, he requested to undergo breath, urine, or hair-follicle testing.  The officer refused, and Baker was charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance.  He was convicted, and appealed.

Judge Bender, writing for a two-judge majority, explained that the defendant had a right to request testing under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(i):

"Any person involved in an accident or placed under arrest for a violation of section 1543(b)(1.1), 3802, or 3808(a)(2) may request a chemical test of his breath, blood or urine. Such requests shall be honored when it is reasonably practicable to do so."

Importantly, the majority also parsed the language of the statute to mean that all requests for testing must be honored at a time "when it is reasonably practicable to do so."  Thus, the majority concluded that the wording of the statute distinguished it from an alternative reading, which would be that requests need only be honored if "it is reasonably practicable to do so."  Thus, the majority's reading of the statute confers an absolute right on defendants to obtain blood breath and urine testing when arrested for DUI-type offenses.

This right, the majority concluded, was violated when the officer refused to comply with the defendant's request to have his breath or urine tested.  Because Baker was denied access to (potentially) exculpatory evidence in violation of his statutory rights, the majority concluded that his conviction should be reversed.

Read the Opinion.