Judges Opinions, — June 2, 2026 14:23 — 0 Comments
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Christian Matthew Hennessey
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Christian Matthew Hennessey
Criminal Action-Constitutional Law-Homicide by Vehicle While Driving Under the Influence-Death of Passenger-Death of Unborn Child-Emergency Treatment-Blood Samples-Omnibus Pretrial Motion-Suppression of Evidence-Results of Blood Testing-Blood Drawn Under Title 75 Pa.C.S. §3755-Treatment
Christian Matthew Hennessey (“Defendant”) was charged with multiple crimes including Homicide by Vehicle while Driving Under the Influence, Aggravated Assault of an Unborn Child, Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person and Driving Under the Influence following a motor vehicle accident on April 25, 2023 in which the passenger of Defendant’s vehicle and her unborn child died. Defendant sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized in an intensive care unit. A law enforcement officer requested that the hospital retain blood samples taken from Defendant for treatment until a search warrant could be obtained, after which the law enforcement officer returned to the hospital with the search warrant and took possession of the blood samples. Following submission of the samples for analysis, the results of the testing confirmed the presence of controlled substances. Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion for suppression of evidence on the basis of a recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Hunte, 337 A.3d 483 (Pa. 2025), which held that Title 75 Pa.C.S. 3755(a) is facially unconstitutional.
1. Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755(a) requires that if as a result of a motor vehicle accident a person who operated the vehicle requires medical treatment in an emergency room and probable cause exists to believe that the person was driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, the emergency room personnel promptly shall take blood samples from that person and transmit them for testing with test results to be released upon request of the person testing or governmental officials or agencies.
2. In Hunte, supra, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that § 3755(a) is facially unconstitutional because it authorizes warrantless blood draws in the absence of any exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3. The Court in Hunte held that where blood is drawn for the purposes of treatment and not pursuant to § 3755(a), the testing is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
4. Since Defendant’s blood draw was performed by hospital staff for his medical treatment and not pursuant to § 3755 and the law enforcement officer did not direct hospital staff to submit Defendant’s blood to any lab for analysis, there was no seizure until the law enforcement officer took possession of the blood samples and forwarded them for testing after he had obtained a search warrant such that there was no illegal or warrantless search compelling suppression of evidence.
L.C.C.C.P. No. CP-38-CR-656-2024, Opinion by John C. Tylwalk, President Judge, February 25, 2026.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF LEBANON COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. CP-38-CR-656-2024
:
v. :
:
CHRISTIAN MATTHEW HENNESSEY :
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2026, it appearing that several of the dates included in the Order and Opinion entered in this matter on February 25, 2026 are inaccurate due to an oversight, it is hereby Ordered that said Opinion is amended as follows:
- Page 2, Paragraph 2, first sentence, is amended to read: “At the hearing, Corporal Robert Henning of the Cleona Borough Police testified on April 25, 2023 at 1:48 p.m., he was dispatched for the report of an accident in the vicinity of Route 72 and Moonshine Road.”
- Page 3, Paragraph 3, third sentence, is amended to read: “Corporal Henning was advised that the hospital would retain the blood samples until May 17, 2023.”
- Page 3, Paragraph 4, first sentence, is amended to read: “Corporal Henning obtained a search warrant on May 11, 2023.”
BY THE COURT:
____________________________, P.J.
JOHN C. TYLWALK
JCT/jah
Cc: Daniel O. Linares-Herrador, Esquire/Assistant District Attorney
Sarah M. Billet, Esquire/Assistant Public Defender
Leslie Fillak/Court Administration
Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF LEBANON COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. CP-38-CR-656-2024
:
v. :
:
CHRISTIAN MATTHEW HENNESSEY :
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion, the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted on January 21, 2026, and the Briefs submitted by the parties, it is hereby Ordered that said Motion is DENIED. Defendant is directed to appear for the Call of the List scheduled for March 3, 2026 and the Term of Criminal Jury Trials to commence on March 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in the designated Courtrooms.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________, P.J.
JOHN C. TYLWALK
JCT/jah
Cc: Daniel O. Linares-Herrador, Esquire/Assistant District Attorney
Sarah M. Billet, Esquire/Assistant Public Defender
Leslie Fillak/Court Administration
Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF LEBANON COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. CP-38-CR-656-2024
:
v. :
:
CHRISTIAN MATTHEW HENNESSEY :
APPEARANCES:
DANIEL O. LINARES-HERRADOR, ESQUIRE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SARAH M. BILLET, ESQUIRE FOR DEFENDANT
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
OPINION, TYLWALK, P.J., FEBRUARY 25, 2026.
Defendant is charged with Homicide by Vehicle while Driving Under the Influence, Aggravated Assault of Unborn Child, Homicide by Vehicle, two counts of Simple Assault, three counts of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, four counts of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol[1] and three summary offenses[2] after the vehicle he was driving collided with another vehicle on April 25, 2023 in the area of Route 72 and Moonshine Road. Defendant’s passenger, Jamie Stump, and her unborn child died as a result of the accident. Defendant has filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion seeking to suppress evidence of his post-accident medical records, blood drawn after the accident, and the laboratory results of the testing of his blood samples. We conducted a hearing on the Motion on January 21, 2026, both parties have filed post-hearing briefs, and the matter is now before us for disposition.
At the hearing, Corporal Robert Henning of the Cleona Borough Police testified that on April 25, 2024 at 1:48 p.m., he was dispatched for the report of an accident in the vicinity of Route 72 and Moonshine Road. When he arrived, Corporal Henning observed a black Chevrolet pickup truck and a white Ford F-350 which had been involved in an accident. The Chevrolet truck was overturned on the driver’s side, with the occupants still inside. Defendant was identified as the driver of the Chevrolet truck and the victim, Jamie Stump, was in the front passenger seat. Both appeared to have severe injuries. Defendant was conscious, but not alert. Stump was unresponsive and was later pronounced deceased at the scene.
After Defendant was transported to Hershey Medical Center (“HMC”) for treatment, Corporal Henning remained on the scene to conduct further investigation. Corporal Henning cleared the scene and left the area at approximately 6:35 p.m. He dropped off evidence at the police department and proceeded to HMC at 7:00 p.m. At that point, Defendant was in the intensive care unit. Corporal Henning was unable to interview Defendant as Defendant had been intubated, did not appear to be conscious, and was unable to speak. Due to Defendant’s condition, Corporal Henning was unable to obtain his consent for a blood draw.
Corporal Henning learned that the medical staff had drawn Defendant’s blood for medical purposes prior to his arrival at the hospital. Corporal Henning requested the HMC lab to retain the blood samples until he could obtain a search warrant. Corporal Henning was advised that the hospital would retain the blood samples until May 17, 2026.
Corporal Henning obtained a search warrant on May 11, 2026. The blood samples taken by the hospital for medical purposes were the subject of the search warrant. After securing the search warrant, Corporal Henning returned to the hospital and took possession of those blood samples. Corporal Henning submitted the samples for analysis and the lab results confirmed the presence of controlled substances in Defendant’s blood.
Defendant contends that his medical records, his blood samples, and the lab results should be suppressed based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Hunte, 337 A.3d 483 (Pa. 2025) which addressed a constitutional challenge to Section 3755 of the Motor Vehicle Code:
§ 3755. Reports by emergency room personnel
- General rule.–If, as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the person who drove, operated or was in actual physical control of the movement of any involved motor vehicle requires medical treatment in an emergency room of a hospital and if probable cause exists to believe a violation of section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) was involved, the emergency room physician or his designee shall promptly take blood samples from those persons and transmit them within 24 hours for testing to the Department of Health or a clinical laboratory licensed and approved by the Department of Health and specifically designated for this purpose. This section shall be applicable to all injured occupants who were capable of motor vehicle operation if the operator or person in actual physical control of the movement of the motor vehicle cannot be determined. Test results shall be released upon request of the person tested, his attorney, his physician or governmental officials or agencies.
75 Pa.C.S.A. §3755(a).
In Hunte, the Court had initially deferred ruling on the issues pending the outcome of Commonwealth v. Jones-Williams, 279 A.3d 508 (Pa. 2022). In Jones-Williams, the defendant was in the hospital after an accident and was unable to give consent to a blood draw. Police learned that the hospital had already drawn his blood prior to their arrival at the hospital. The police submitted paperwork requesting the lab to transfer the blood sample to the NMS lab for testing for the presence of alcohol and/or controlled substances without first obtaining a search warrant. The Court held that Section 3755 was inapplicable because the medical staff had already drawn and tested the defendant’s blood for medical purposes and therefore it was “not a case where a blood sample had been taken pursuant to Section 3755.” Id. at 520. The Jones-Williams Court noted that the “seizure” occurred when the officer filled out paperwork directing the hospital staff to forward the samples to the lab for testing without first securing a search warrant. The Court observed that there were no exigent circumstances as the blood had already been drawn and preserved and that a search warrant could have been obtained. It found that no exceptions to the warrant requirement existed to justify the warrantless seizure under the circumstances.[3]
In Hunte, the defendant was the driver of a vehicle which had been involved in an accident. When the defendant spoke with the troopers, he appeared dazed and smelled of alcohol. He admitted to being the driver and that he had ingested alcohol. Fentanyl patches and alcohol containers were among the debris at the scene.
After speaking with troopers at the scene, the defendant was transported to the hospital. By the time the troopers arrived at the hospital, the driver was unconscious and they were unable to obtain his consent to a blood draw. The hospital had already drawn the defendant’s blood for medical purposes. The troopers submitted a form requesting the hospital staff to draw additional blood samples from the defendant pursuant to Section 3755. Hospital personnel drew the additional blood as requested and retained the additional samples. The troopers subsequently obtained search warrants granting authorization to take possession of the blood samples and to have the samples submitted for testing. The lab results on the additional samples requested by the troopers indicated the presence of alcohol and controlled substances in Defendant’s system.
The decision in Hunte, which was entered June 17, 2025, held that Section 3755 was facially unconstitutional because it authorized warrantless blood draws in the absence of any legitimate exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In reaching its conclusion, the court stressed that the blood had been drawn pursuant to Section 3755, noting “[i]mportantly, the hospital appeared to have drawn Hunte’s blood for their own medical purposes prior to Trooper German’s request, but this was not the blood draw that Trooper German sought and obtained under Section 3755, and it is not the blood that subsequently was tested for investigative purposes.” Hunte, 337 A.3d at 492. The court noted that the trooper obtaining search warrants for the additional samples did not negate the fact that the additional samples had been drawn pursuant to an unconstitutional statute: “A subsequently obtained search warrant does nothing to cure the statute’s facial authorization of a warrantless search.” Id. at 515. As a result, the court held that the evidence was to be suppressed.
The facts of the case before us are different from the situations in Hunte and Jones-Williams. Defendant’s blood draw was performed by HMC staff for his medical treatment and not pursuant to Section 3755 of the Vehicle Code. The blood was drawn before Corporal Henning arrived at the hospital and Corporal Henning did not request HMC staff to draw Defendant’s blood.[4] Corporal Henning merely asked staff to retain the sample that already existed. He did not direct HMC staff to submit Defendant’s blood to any lab for analysis. There was no “seizure” until Corporal Henning took possession of Defendant’s blood samples and forwarded them to the NMS lab for testing. By that time, he had already obtained a search warrant. The blood sample sent to the lab was the same sample that had been drawn for medical purposes prior to Corporal Henning arriving at the hospital and was the subject of the search warrant. Thus, there was no illegal search or unconstitutional “warrantless seizure” which would require the suppression of this evidence.
We will deny Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion.
[1] Counts 1 through 12, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3735(a)(1)(ii), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2606(a), 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3732(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2701(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2705, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3802(d)(1)(ii), 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3802(d)(2), respectively.
[2] Careless Driving, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714(b), Reckless Driving, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736(a), and Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3309(1).
[3] The officer testified that he had requested the blood draw pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1547:
§ 1547. Chemical testing to determine amount of alcohol or controlled substance
- General rule.–Any person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical tests of breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of blood or the presence of a controlled substance if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating or in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle in violation of section 1543(b)(1.1) (relating to driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked), 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled
substance) or 3808(a)(2) (relating to illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition
interlock).
75 Pa.C.S.A. §1547(a).
[4] Defendant’s medical records indicate the blood was drawn at 4:46 and 5:49 p.m. on the afternoon of the accident.
About the author
Ben has written 1206 articles for Lebanon County Legal Journal