The trial court did not err in finding that defendant's consent to a blood test was invalid where he only consented to the blood draw after being informed by police that he faced enhanced criminal penalties for failing to do so. The court affirmed an order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a blood draw.
August 11, 2017 at 02:06 PM
1 minute read
Admissibility • Blood Test Results • DUI Charges • Invalid Consent
Commonwealth v. Ennels, PICS Case No. 17-0712 (Pa. Super July 11, 2017) Moulton, J. (25 pages).
The trial court did not err in finding that defendant’s consent to a blood test was invalid where he only consented to the blood draw after being informed by police that he faced enhanced criminal penalties for failing to do so. The court affirmed an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of a blood draw.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
