The current case before the North Dakota Supreme Court began in May of 2016 when a police officer in Fargo stopped a driver for operating a vehicle without headlights. The officer conducted several field sobriety tests and arrested the driver, suspecting him of being under the influence of drugs. The officer requested the driver submit to a urine test, something the driver refused. As a result, the driver was charged with a Class C felony.
The driver’s attorney has since challenged the refusal charge, arguing that the law doesn’t allow for warrantless seizure of urine and thus should not justify any criminal charge for refusing to submit to such a test. A lower level court agreed with the driver, saying that urine tests are far closer to blood tests than breath tests. The lower court decided that urine tests are likely to lead to much more embarrassment for the suspect than a breath test. The court also held that the Fourth Amendment gives a person the right to be secure in his or her bodily fluids and that this protection should extend to include urine as much as it does blood.
The state has appealed the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Prosecutors argue that urine testing is now the only real option for testing for the presence of drugs in suspected impaired drivers now that blood testing has been thrown out. They also argue that the state has a strong interest in deterring drug-impaired driving and that this kind of testing is integral to furthering that interest. Whether the State Supreme Court will be persuaded remains to be seen. However, if Minnesota is any judge, the answer may be no. Just last year the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a drunk driver shouldn’t be prosecuted for refusing to submit to a warrantless urine test.
Source: North Dakota Supreme Court debates urine testing in DUI cases, by John Hageman, published at BismarckTribune.com.