The Pennsylvania Superior Court in an opinion issued late last week put limits on the number of blood draws police can demand when investigating an offense of driving under the influence.

In the process, the appeals court vacated the sentence of an Irvona woman and sent the case back to a Clearfield County judge for resentencing.

The case began on May 5, 2023, when a state trooper was notified that there was a motorist “passed out” in her SUV, which was parked in the lot of a Dollar General in Irvona.

The investigating officer found Melissa Jo Norris, 47, asleep in the driver’s seat and her key fob resting on her lap.

According to the Superior Court opinion, the investigating trooper, Austin Woolcock, had wide experience with motorists driving under the influence (most of his 100-plus arrests involved drug impairment), and after having trouble communicating with Norris, he administered field sobriety tests, which indicated Norris had “coordination and comprehension problems.”

She maintained her problems stemmed from the fact she was tired from working a double shift that day, but she did admit also that she had smoked methamphetamine early the previous morning.

The officer decided to take her to the hospital for a blood draw.

However, after four attempts, the phlebotomist was unable to draw the blood necessary for testing.

After the fourth failed attempt, Norris indicated she was hurting and withdrew her consent.

She was then taken to the state police barracks, where the officer obtained a warrant and then took her back to the hospital for yet another attempt to draw blood.

The fifth attempt to draw blood by a different phlebotomist was also unsuccessful and according to the phlebotomist, Norris cried out in pain.

Norris once again withdrew her consent for a blood draw.

She was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence and with obstructing the administration of law for withdrawing her consent to additional blood draws.

Clearfield County Judge Paul E. Cherry sentenced her to confinement of 72 hours to six months for the DUI and a concurrent sentence of two years’ probation on the obstruction charge.

Norris, through Ebensburg attorney Robert J. Freeman, appealed the sentence to the Superior Court.

In the opinion written by Judge Kate Ford Elliott, the Superior Court panel reviewing the case upheld Norris’s DUI conviction, reasoning that her poor performance in the field sobriety tests and her admission to smoking methamphetamine some 18 hours prior to her arrest was enough to establish that she was driving under the influence of drugs.

The decision noted that the law does not require a specific quantity of drugs to be in her system to support a DUI finding.

But the Superior Court panel hearing the Norris case took a closer look at whether Norris had, by her refusal to undergo further blood draws, obstructed the administration of law.

The opinion, supported by Elliott and Judges Judith F. Olson and Megan Sullivan, concluded, “We cannot agree that the evidence established her intent to obstruct law enforcement.”

The prosecution noted that Norris had twice withdrawn her consent to a blood draw and argued the law required her to grant consent to additional blood draws, if needed.

The panel rejected that argument.

It pointed out that Norris had voluntarily submitted to four blood draws, and, although a warrant had been issued, gave her permission for a fifth blood draw.

The panel in its opinion stated, “Under these unusual circumstances, which demonstrate Norris’s cooperation and her withdrawal of that cooperation only after repeated, failed and painful attempts, we cannot agree as a matter of law that the facts and circumstances sufficiently established Norris’s intent to obstruct the administration of law.”

Norris, the panel concluded, complied with the police officer’s investigation “until the point that multiple failed blood draw attempts became painful, and appears by any reasonable and common sense standard, futile.”

A person’s refusal to cooperate after five failed attempts “does not prove Norris’s intention to obstruct the trooper from obtaining a blood sample,” the opinion states.

The ruling, according to the opinion, upsets the trial court’s overall sentencing scheme, but allows the trial court to resentence the defendant.