“In sum, because the warnings given to defendant were at least partially inaccurate — i.e., as to the admissibility at trial of his refusal to submit to testing — the courts below properly suppressed the results of the breathalyzer test on the ground that defendant’s consent to take the test was involuntary. The People’s remaining argument regarding the accuracy of the warning of license suspension — the crux of the dissent — is both irrelevant to our analysis and academic.”
People v. Odum, 2018 NY Slip Op 03173, 2018 N.Y. LEXIS 1081 (May 3, 2018).
“We join the Commonwealth Court and hold that PennDOT permissibly revised the original DL-26 form to comply with Birchfield. In light of this conclusion, and after considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding Appellee’s consents to the blood tests, we conclude that Appellee’s consent was voluntary in both cases. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s suppression orders and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Commonwealth v. Robertson, 2018 PA Super 110, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 426 (May 3, 2018).*