say the contested Indiana Hospital blood draw was in compliance with the law. As such, the trial court should have suppressed those results. See Wilmington, supra; Pa. R.Crim.P 581(H). ¶ 26 The Commonwealth also argues that Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme creates two different types of legal blood draws. Under Section 1547(a), a p ospital blood draw was permissible under Section 3755(a). We are constrained to disagree. ¶27 Here, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth attempted to prove that Indiana Hospital conducted the second blood draw for independent medical purposes. However, the Commonwealth cannot argue that this blood draw was taken for both independent medical purposes and as a result of a “perceived duty” arising out of Section 3755. See Shaw, supra at 622-23, 298-99 (<HOLDING>). Further, the Commonwealth does not point to
holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding blood test taken for independent medical purpose is not same as blood test taken pursuant to section 3755a holding that under the oregon constitution when a person consents to have their blood drawn and tested for specified substances the scope of that consent limits the scope of the states power to test the blood without a warrant holding presumption of paternity that applies to intact family prevented an order by the court for a blood test or the use of privately obtained blood test to rebut the presumption of legitimacy holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content