Prosecutors appealed the decision, moving the case along to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court, deciding that evidence of the test should be admitted into evidence. The Court wrote that while a breath test might require a warrant in some cases, no warrant is needed when a suspect consents to a search. In this case, the Court concluded that Drum agreed to the breath test voluntarily, eliminating the need for the officer to first secure a search warrant.
Drum’s attorneys argued that while consent can be used as a basis for a search, in this case, Drum’s consent was not truly voluntary given Minnesota’s existing implied-consent law. The law in the state is punitive and criminalizes a decision to refuse to submit to a chemical test. Given this harsh choice, Drum’s lawyers argued that no consent could be voluntary, as drivers believe their only option is to submit to the test.
Though Drum’s argument was persuasive at the district court level, the appeals court disagreed; saying that a recent decision out of the Minnesota Supreme Court made clear that the state’s implied-consent law is not coercive. As a result, Drum’s voluntary consent is enough to justify the breath test and the case will be remanded for a new trial.
To read the full opinion, click here.