Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Law Allowing Criminal Prosecution of Breath Test Refusals
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision in State v. Bernard, a case that challenged the constitutionality of a state law that criminalizes a breath test refusal in an investigation for driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI). In its opinion, the Court upheld the law, allowing authorities to bring a Gross Misdemeanor criminal charge against an individual suspected of DWI who refuses breath testing so long as the arresting officer has probable cause to believe the individual was impaired at the time of the arrest and was read the Implied Consent Advisory before being asked to test.
Specifics of the Case
The case involved the arrest of William Bernard, who refused to submit to a breath test after an officer requested that he take one. The case originated from a 2012 incident in which police investigated a report of three drunk men trying to remove a boat from the water. Upon approaching the three men, the investigating officers observed William Bernard holding the keys to his truck and showing signs of intoxication. Although Bernard denied driving the truck, multiple witnesses reported seeing him stumbling from the boat to the truck. Bernard refused to perform field sobriety tests and a breath test, resulting in the initiation of case alleging violation of Minnesota Statute 169A.20 Subdivision 2 which criminalizes the refusal of submitting to a chemical test.
This case is attracting the attention of legal experts as it is seems that it may be in opposition the United States Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Missouri v. McNeely, which invalidated the warrantless blood draw of a DUI suspect simply based upon the dissipation of alcohol in the blood. Bernard had argued that this decision invalidates the Minnesota law criminalizing chemical testing refusal, as it would criminalize the refusal of a search that could not be compelled without a warrant. The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that the officer had probable cause to believe that Bernard was intoxicated, and therefore could have obtained a warrant. Unlike McNeely, the court argued, Bernard was given the choice to submit to a test, one of two constitutionally reasonable options available to the investigating officer (the other being obtaining a warrant based on probable cause). The court also ruled that searches in the form of breath testing do not require a warrant because these searches are “incident to arrest.” Searches incident to arrest are a commonly understood exception to the warrant requirement; however, this exception has not previously been applied to breath testing. Recently, Justice Edward Cleary noted in a concurring opinion that search incident to arrest may not be the proper standard and likely would not apply to blood and urine tests. Bernard itself notes that blood and urine tests may very well be different than breath testing.
Contact your Minneapolis criminal defense attorney today to schedule a free consultation
In all likelihood, this will not be the last word in the constitutionality of laws criminalizing chemical test refusals. In many DWI cases, the law provides ample interpretative room, allowing a skilled criminal defense attorney to mount legitimate legal challenges to allegations of DWI. If you were recently arrest for DWI, call my office today at 612-730-1738 to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation.