The Minnesota Supreme Court has backed up this idea, deciding in State v. Shriner that warrantless blood tests are constitutional based on the exigent circumstances created by the dissipation of alcohol in a driver’s bloodstream. Bernard argued that the recent McNeely decision should alter Minnesota’s interpretation of the law, a contention the Court of Appeals ultimately disagreed with.
The judges decided that imposing criminal penalties for refusing to submit to a breath test is a reasonable means of achieving a permissible state objective. The Court held that because the arresting officer in this case had probable cause to believe that Bernard was impaired, he also had the option of obtaining a blood test by getting a search warrant. That means that at the time Bernard was asked to submit to a test, the officer had the ability to receive a warrant. The Court said that this makes Bernard’s case different from the warrantless test at issue in McNeely. Rather than force Bernard to submit to the test based on a search warrant, the officer gave Bernard an option to voluntarily provide a breath sample. The Court held that Bernard’s refusal could constitutionally be penalized under Minnesota law.
To read the full opinion, click here.