The Court said that while reading the statutory statement is critical in cases where the driver refused to give a sample, it is meaningless in those cases where a driver already provided his or her consent. In these cases, the justices believe that drivers have already made the decision to go forward with the test and that hearing about the punishment they could be subjected to is pointless given their demonstrated willingness to submit to the test. Defense attorneys previously argued that the failure to read the statutory statement invalidated the entire DUI arrest process.
Just like in New Jersey, Minnesota has a similar statutory statement that must be read to motorists during a traffic stop. The statement is referred to as the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory (MNICA) and must be read by a police officer prior to dispensing a chemical test to determine if a driver is under the influence.
According to Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.51, the MNICA contains important information about the rights of the driver under Minnesota law. The MNICA explains that the implied consent law requires drivers to take a test to determine their level of impairment and that any refusal to take such a test is a crime. The statement also must inform the motorist that they have the right to consult with an attorney, provided the consultation does not result in an unreasonable delay in administering the chemical test.
In Minnesota, there is no specific requirement that the arresting officer must read the MNICA at any particular time or place. Instead, the rule is that motorists must be informed of their rights at some point before taking the test. There are circumstances where the statement need not be read, including those where an accident resulted in injuries or death or where the impaired driver is unconscious.