The Court heard arguments on the issue and concluded that the consent to submit to the blood test was coerced and not the result of voluntary consent on the part of the driver. Without this voluntary consent, the Court of Appeals said that the evidence needed to be excluded from court because the officer also failed to secure a warrant authorizing the procedure. The woman’s was given a new trial and had her existing conviction tossed. The moral of the story: no warrant, no real consent, no dice.
Cases just like this one have been and will continue to be heard across the country in the wake of the important Supreme Court case, Missouri v. McNeely. Since the Court held that warrantless blood tests would be disallowed unless there were extraordinary circumstances present to justify such an intrusive search, challenges across the country have sought to clarify exactly when and where such searches are tolerated.
In Minnesota, legal experts are still awaiting an important ruling from the state Supreme Court in State v. Bernard, a case concerning the different, though related issue of the implied consent law. In Bernard, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to require the chemical testing of a driver to determine impairment and allows for criminal punishment if the person refuses. How that case is ultimately decided will impact the lives of many Minnesotans who have found themselves faced with the difficult choice of having to consent to an invasive search or face criminal penalties for refusing to go along.
Source: “Ruling disallows involuntary DUI evidence,” published at Fox10Phoenix.com