Commonwealth v. Hunte: 

Warrantless Emergency Room Blood Draws Declared Unconstitutional !

By Paul M. Aaroe, II — The DUI Guy
Posted June 20, 2025 on duiguynow.com

Background

In Commonwealth v. Hunte, decided June 17, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755, the statute permitting warrantless blood draws under Pennsylvania's “Emergency Room Blood Draw” law. This decision marks a major shift with serious implications for DUI defense in cases involving serious injuries.  

The Facts

Troopers responded to a severe single-car crash in Cumberland County. The driver, Larry Wardell Hunte, was found unconscious at the hospital. Suspecting DUI due to alcohol containers, fentanyl patches at the scene, and Hunte's admission of drinking, Trooper German invoked Section 3755 and directed hospital staff to draw Hunte's blood—without a warrant and without Hunte's consent. Subsequent testing revealed alcohol and controlled substances.  

The Legal Challenge

Hunte moved to suppress the blood results, arguing Section 3755 is facially unconstitutional. The trial court agreed, finding no recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court's Ruling
   •   Blood draws are significant, bodily-invasive searches protected under the Fourth Amendment and comparable Pennsylvania constitutional law.  
   •   Section 3755 authorizes warrantless blood tests based on probable cause alone—without a warrant, exigency determination, or valid “consent” waiver. The Court rejected the statute's facial authority to override constitutional protections.
   •   Arguments invoking implied consent, exigent circumstances, or the fact that the blood draw was followed by a warrant, were deemed irrelevant; the statute itself is unconstitutional because it permits warrantless searches on its face, regardless of later justifications.  

What This Means for DUI Defense
 1. Blood draws at ERs must now be based on constitutional authority, not just statutory direction. Investigators will need a warrant or case-specific exigent circumstances to justify drawing blood from an unconscious driver.
 2. Section 3755 can no longer be relied on. Business as usual under “emergency room blood draw” statutes is a thing of the past.
 3. Routine training and procedures must change. Troopers should seek warrants promptly or wait to draw blood until a lawful basis is established.
 4. Defendants have a powerful new argument to challenge ER blood draws obtained via Section 3755—even if warrants were later acquired.

Action Steps for Defendants and Attorneys
   •   File motions to suppress any blood evidence obtained under Section 3755 without a warrant or exigent circumstances.
   •   Check police/medical forms and testimony—if the request references “under §3755,” that's a red flag.
   •   Demand full disclosures: officers must clarify whether exigency existed and why a warrant wasn't sought first.

⸻

In Summary

Commonwealth v. Hunte decisively ended the era of warrantless statutory blood draws at Pennsylvania hospitals. As your DUI Guy, I urge vigilance: any ER draw under §3755 is now presumptively unconstitutional. The Commonwealth must establish a warrant or valid exigency—otherwise, blood evidence should be excluded.

⸻

Have questions about this case or need help fighting a DUI? As always, I'm here for you. Schedule a free evaluation at [email protected] or (610) 559‑7401.

⸻

Paul M. Aaroe, II
The DUI Guy — The attorney judges, doctors, and attorneys turn to for DUI defense