The landscape of Minnesota DWI laws has been shifting in 2015. It all started back in October, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals made a ruling in State of Minnesota v. Trahan. In Trahan, the court of appeals ruled that the State cannot charge an individual with refusal of a blood test for which there is no warrant. The court reasoned that to do so would be a violation of an individual’s fundamental right to be free from unconstitutional searches.
As a result of the Minnesota Court of Appeals most recent ruling in State v. Thompson, issued December 28, 2015, the Minnesota DWI Refusal law was clearly dealt another blow. In Thompson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals made an additional ruling on the Refusal laws, this time pertaining to the refusal of a urine test. The court followed its previous ruling in Trahan, stating that “as with a warrantless blood test, a warrantless urine test cannot be justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception [to the warrant requirement].”
In explaining its ruling, the court acknowledged that a urine test is less intrusive than a blood test. However, the court also states that “because a driver must produce a urine sample in front of an officer, a urine test is unquestionably more intrusive than a breath sample.” It went on to say that “A urine test ‘intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable.’”
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.
