According to the government, the reason that warrants should not be required is that it would be too difficult and time-consuming to require law enforcement officers to get a warrant in each and every case. The argument is that with nearly 30,000 drunk driving arrests each year, officers would spend an inordinate amount of time tracking down warrants. Additionally, the government argues that time is critical in these cases and that if it takes a long time to obtain a warrant it’s possible that the alcohol in a person’s system could have diminished, effectively destroying crucial evidence.
The defendant in the case says that the reality is the constitution protects drivers from warrantless searches and that the only exceptions to this rule (officer safety and exigency) do not apply. The Fourth Amendment is clear that law enforcement must secure a warrant before conducting a search, a point that was bolstered in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Missouri v. McNeely, where the majority found that police must make all efforts to get a warrant before securing a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver if they want a conviction to be upheld.
Another issue that was raised during oral arguments is the fact that Minnesota is one of only 11 states that criminalize the refusal to submit to a test to determine alcohol, something the judges also appeared to take issue with. Several asked why existing administrative penalties that suspend a person’s license aren’t sufficient to encourage drivers to submit to the tests. The government responded by arguing that the penalties aren’t strong enough. The case will likely be decided, and the issue hopefully resolved once and for all, in the coming months.
Source: “Minnesota Supreme Court ponders whether a warrant should be required for alcohol tests,” by Rochelle Olson, published at StarTribune.com.