Minnesota Supreme Court makes another ruling on implied consent

A couple of weeks ago we wrote about a slight change in the implied consent rule thanks to a new interpretation of the rule by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a follow-up to that post, this post will look at another decision the Minnesota Supreme Court made in relation to implied consent -- but this time, it has to do with breath tests and an individual who refuses to take one.

Implied consent compels an individual to take a breath test when they are accused of a DUI. As part of your agreement to have a driver's license, you thus "consent" to any breath test that an officer tells you to take. It's part of the privilege of driving. However, there was a significant challenge to this view of implied consent here in Minnesota. Unfortunately, it did not favor those who are accused of drunk driving.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a breath test does not constitute an unwarranted search and, thus, people do not have the right to refuse such a request by the police. This doesn't change anything, really. It's still the status quo with breath tests.

But this serves as another important reminder about how the criminal system treats DUIs. The rules are very rigid and there is very little leniency with these offenses. If you are accused of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then you need to get an attorney right away to protect your rights and help you with the case.

Source: Albert Lea Tribune, "Minnesota Supreme Court: DWI testing laws are legal," Associated Press, Feb. 12, 2015

Tags: Breath Test Refusal

Continue Reading...

Implied consent law has new wrinkle thanks to Supreme Court

We've talked about implied consent on this blog before, and what it means for all drivers in the state of Minnesota if they are accused of driving under the influence. However, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court changes the way the rule is interpreted, and it has a profound affect on people who were looking to challenge a certain aspect to the rule.

Remember that implied consent originally meant that any driver thought to be intoxicated by the police inherently consented to having a blood test done. The consent is agreed to as part of the individual obtaining a license.

However, the rule was challenged as it seemed like the police should have to obtain a warrant before going through with such a blood test -- even under implied consent. The police countered by saying that in the time it would take to obtain a warrant for a drunk driver, the individual's alcohol levels would dramatically shift.

The Supreme Court agreed with the people, saying that the police need to obtain a warrant before they are allowed to proceed with a blood test.

So where does that leave people who were arrested and forced to take a blood test prior to this ruling being made? Well, unfortunately, it looks like they are out of luck. The ruling applies now and will not have any retroactive action.

This is a significant and important change to DWI law in Minnesota, and drivers now need to be aware of this if they are accused of drunk driving.

Source: MPR, "MN court rules DUI blood testing proper in past cases," Bob Collins, Jan. 12, 2015

Tags: Blood Alcohol Tests

Continue Reading...

Going Federal On Implied Consent

Posted on January 9, 2015 by Chuck Ramsay

There comes a time when it becomes clear that the persistent and systematic violation of a constitutional right is falling on deaf ears in state courts. Here in Minnesota, in case after case, the fundamental constitutional right to be protected from warrantless invasions of bodily integrity – your right to refuse to give your breath, blood, or urine when there is no search warrant -- is being flagrantly violated by police during DWI investigations, and the courts are doing nothing about it. When that time comes, as it certainly has, the only remaining option is going federal.

Today, on behalf of a client, we filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. We put together evidence of our state courts’ failure to uphold the Constitution, and we are asking the federal court to step in to protect our rights. Minnesota courts have left us with no other choice. Since January 2014, in the aftermath of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Brooks, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has decided at least 70 appeals from district court cases dealing specifically with the issue of consent in the context of DWI. In every single one of those 70+ cases, the court concluded that the driver freely and voluntarily consented to a custodial, warrantless search. In one case, Bathen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, the Court of Appeals found that a driver “freely and voluntarily consented” to an in-custody, warrantless search after law enforcement sicced a police dog on him, and one officer punched him in the head while another officer threw punches below the waist.

In at least 24 cases, under an astounding array of factual scenarios, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s conclusion that a driver’s consent was free and voluntary. Far more alarming is the fact that in one year the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed district courts’ determinations that consent was coerced and was not free and voluntary in at least 43 cases. In 2014, district court judges found coercion almost twice as often as they found consent, and yet the Court of Appeals reversed every single district court judge who found that, under the totality of the circumstances, a driver was coerced into consenting. The situation is so dire that the Court of Appeals has taken to dismissing the lack of consent in the majority of cases by concluding that drivers are “consenting” to the execution of warrantless searches “as a matter of law.”

Anyone with a dictionary, an eighth grade education, and a speck of common sense knows that it is impossible to give free and voluntary consent – or free and voluntary anything - as a matter of law. If some act is required by law, your willingness to perform that act is irrelevant; you have to do it whether you want to or not. Here, the Court of Appeals sees no problem with a law that makes it a crime not to consent to a warrantless search.

The decision to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court is a significant one. The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ clear endorsement of an unconstitutional law calls for significant action. The time has come to call on the federal courts to end this injustice and reinstate the Fourth Amendment protections of the Constitution in Minnesota.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/319032

Continue Reading...

Nevada Supreme Court Holds State's Implied Consent Statute Unconstitutional

Home > Fourth Amendment > Nevada Supreme Court Holds State's Implied Consent Statute UnconstitutionalPosted on October 17, 2014 by Jud Nichols

Another state in our union has joined the bandwagon of those requiring warrants in DWI cases.

In a unanimous decision, the Nevada Supreme Court held that, in light of Missouri v. McNeely, there was no basis for warrantless searches of drivers’ blood, as allowed per Nevada's now-unconstitutional statute.

Interestingly, a spokesperson for a Nevada Police Department stated that it won’t affect the state’s day-to-day operations! How is this possible?

Well, unlike Minnesota, Nevada changed its policies shortly after McNeely, and started obtaining warrants.   

Also unlike Minnesota, as a Nevada attorney explained, this decision means a couple important changes in the law: first, now police are going to have to go get a warrant or get true knowing and voluntary consent (as is not fully clarified in Minnesota DWI law), and second, a person can say, “no, I’m not taking your test” (something that cannot be said in our state without being charged with refusal).  

This decision is more evidence of a trend in our county to require warrants in DWI cases, rather than relying on an exception to the warrant requirement, such as "consent," as is being done in Minnesota.

Will our state jump on board soon? We're doing our best to expedite this possibility. 

Continue Reading...