The Supreme Court ultimately held in a 5-2 decision that the implied consent law is constitutional, meaning that it is acceptable for Bernard, and others like him, to be criminally charged for refusing to submit to a chemical test to determine intoxication. Rather than view the implied consent law as authorizing warrantless searches, the Court decided that the test officers asked Bernard to submit to would have been constitutional as a search incident to a valid arrest. The Court notes that there was ample evidence for the police to establish probable cause to arrest Bernard for DWI. The breath test would then have been a valid search of his person and no more intrusive than other searches of the body that courts across the country allow. Thus, the chemical testing requirement is constitutional in cases where sufficient probable cause exists, even if the officer never actually secures a warrant.
The Court deemed the implied consent statute reasonable and said that they believe it serves a rational governmental purpose. The logic is that criminalizing the refusal to submit to a chemical test makes it easier to prosecute those suspected of drunk driving and thus makes the roadways safer for other motorists. Given what the Court sees as a compelling interest in ensuring the safety of Minnesota drivers, the implied consent measure will be allowed to continue unaltered.
Going forward, this means that Minnesota drivers can be arrested and charged with criminal acts for refusing to submit to a chemical test to determine their BAC. So long as the arresting officer has sufficient probable cause and believes a warrant could be justified, the search will be allowed, regardless of whether a warrant was ever actually secured.
To read the full opinion, click here.