Submitting to Two Tests

The courts have clearly decided that a blood or urine test amounts to a search and seizure. McFarren, citing Commonwealth v. Funk, 254 Pa. Superior Ct. 233, 385 A.2d 995 (1978).

A police officer with reasonable grounds to believe a licensee was operating a vehicle while under the influence initially has unfettered discretion under 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1547(a) to request the licensee to submit to one of the following types of chemical tests: breath, blood, or urine. Once the officer chooses blood or urine, however, they may not change, as in Blair v. Commonwealth.  Blair v. Commonwealth, 115 Pa. Commw. 293 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988)

The Blair court is a well-cited and treated case regarding an officer requesting two different types of test.  

What the Court Decided

If a blood or urine test was chosen, only one of those was to be administered unless the officer established a reasonable ground for requesting a second test. Evidence revealed that the officer had no reason to believe the initial blood test would be inconclusive.

As the Court in Blair stated,

There was no testimony before the trial court that the blood test alone was an insufficient means of obtaining a determination as to whether Blair was driving under the influence of a controlled substance as well as alcohol. Evidence that both a blood and urine test were necessary to determine Blair's blood alcohol content and to detect the presence of controlled substances would have provided reasonable grounds to justify the request  for the urine test in this case. However, neither this Court nor the trial court is able to infer such a fact on our own. Therefore, we must conclude that the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to request that Blair submit to a urine test after he had already provided a blood sample. Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying Blair's appeal and reinstating DOT's suspension of his operating privilege is reversed.