Just like in its ruling in Trahan, the court also ruled in Thompson that Mr. Thompson’s right to substantive due process was violated under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. There are alternatives available to charging someone with refusal, such as asking for a breath test, getting a warrant for the blood or urine, and charging someone with DWI without using a test. Because the state has other ways of dealing with individuals who refuse blood or urine tests, charging them with a crime for refusing without getting a warrant violates their constitutional rights.
So what does all of this mean? It means that for now, all cases that are a refusal of blood or urine tests must be challenged. It can also be argued that any DWI case involving an individual that submits to a blood or urine test should be challenged. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has granted review of the Minnesota case State v. Bernard, which right now says that it is constitutional to charge someone with refusal for refusing a breath test. The decision on that case will come out sometime in 2016. In the meantime, if you have been charged with refusal to submit to a blood or urine test, or have any other questions regarding the changing DWI laws in Minnesota, contact the Kans Law Firm for a free consultation.