Here it is, at last. The opinion we've all been waiting for: State v. Bernard.
According to our Minnesota Supreme Court:
1. Because a warrantless search of appellant’s breath would have been constitutional as a search incident to a valid arrest, charging appellant with violating Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2014), for refusing to take a breathalyzer in this circumstance does not implicate a fundamental right.
2. Because Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2, is a reasonable means to a permissive object, it does not violate appellant’s right to due process under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions.
The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
Read the full opinion here.
Our legal analysis of the opinion is in the works (we've got some opinions of our own to share as well).
Check back later today for our complete Bernard breakdown, including what today's decision means for drivers and attorneys, including those with cases currently pending in Minnesota courts.
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URLhttp://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/319498
