In April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court created a Rorschach test for DWI law called McNeely v. Missouri.
Applying the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to Missouri law—and the facts of Mr. McNeely’s particular arrest—the Court held that the police should have obtained a warrant before taking Mr. McNeely’s blood and testing it for alcohol pursuant to a pending DWI charge and ruled that the results of the warrantless test must be suppressed.
Implied Consent Laws
All states have “Implied Consent” (IC) laws whereby a driver “consents” to submit to chemical tests of blood, breath, or urine as a condition of having a driver’s license and driving on the state’s roads. Each state’s IC law differs at least a little from the others’. Minnesota’s IC law is unique in making refusal to take a chemical test a crime, independent of any underlying DWI charges, for someone who is arrested for a first-time, misdemeanor DWI.
Applying McNeely to Minnesota Law
Since the McNeely decision, Minnesota’s lawyers and judges have tried to apply the ruling to the facts of their cases and Minnesota’s DWI and IC laws. The results are surprisingly varied.
Some judges have held that Minnesota’s IC law already provides sufficient consent to a test, so a warrant is not necessary (others have distinguished between IC “consent,” or an administrative consent to have a driver’s license versus, 4th Amendment consent). Some judges have ruled that McNeely only applies to blood tests, not urine or breath, which are less intrusive.
Minnesota’s McNeely Database
. For example, judges in Hennepin County are ruling consistently one way (that McNeely doesn’t apply under Minnesota’s DWI scheme), and judges in Stearns County are consistently ruling the other way (that the results of warrantless tests must be suppressed).
Database of Judges’ Rulings is Available Here
Leave a Reply