McNeely Decisions in Minnesota

Warrantless Searches:

Police have been testing the breath, blood, and urine of suspected drunk drivers for years without getting a warrant to search the drivers.  The alleged justification for this apparent violation of the IV Amendment’s requirement that the police obtain a warrant before conducting a search was that because alcohol dissipates in the body, the police had to search your blood, breath, or urine immediately.

McNeely:

In April, the US Supreme Court ruled that police violated Tyler McNeely’s 4th Amendment rights by forcibly drawing his blood without first obtaining a warrant.

McNeely in Minnesota:

The McNeely decision raises many questions for the Minnesota state courts.  Does the McNeely rationale apply to breath and urine tests as well as urine?  Does the McNeely rationale apply to the civil (Implied Consent) part of a DWI charge (the loss of license)?  Do Minnesota drivers “consent” to the search when they allow it after being told that “refusal to take the test is a crime,” or does that coerce consent.

Ongoing Updates:

None of these questions have definite answers, yet. Each of Minnesota’s 289 judges are making their own decisions on a case-by-case basis.

I am collecting opinions by Minnesota’s judges. So far, I have tabulated the opinions of about thirty judges in Anoka, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Hubbard, Meeker, Nicollet, Ramsey, Rice, Sibley, Sterns, Washington, and Wright counties.

http://www.barrysedwardslaw.com/mcneely/database/

Being a criminal defense lawyer is always interesting!  Call me if you have questions about how recent changes in the law could affect your DWI charges.