Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Roehler (Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished, Decided April 4, 2016) which stands for the proposition that if the police obtain a warrantless blood draw as permitted under binding appellate precedent, then even if the precedent is overturned, the test result is permissible as the officer was acting in "good faith".

In Roehler, the Defendant was involved in a head-on collision in Minnesota when he crossed the centerline of Highway 34 and collided with a van traveling in the opposite direction.  The van driver was killed and its two other passengers were injured. Roehler was seriously injured and was transported by ambulance to be airlifted for treatment in Fargo, North Dakota.

A warrantless blood draw was taken from Mr. Roehler at the hospital which revealed a blood alcohol level of .05.  At trial, a BCA expert extrapolated back to the time of the accident and estimated at the time of said accident, the Defendant's blood alcohol level was between .08 and .14.

The Defendant was convicted of all the charges and he appealed his conviction.  While Roehler's appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, ruled that dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not constitute a per se exigency that permits a warrantless nonconsensual blood draw that would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment, and that exigency must be decided on a case-by-case basis with reference to the totality of the circumstances.

The Court of Appeals reversed Roehler's conviction based upon the McNeely decision and the prosecution sought further review from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The Minnesota Supreme Court then sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the test result evidence should be suppressed if the police were acting in "good faith".

In today's decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals notes that at the time of Roehler's blood draw, the Minnesota Supreme Court had held (in State v. Shriner) that, "a nonconsensual blood draw was a reasonable search that could be made without a warrant because the rapid dissipation of alcohol created an exigent circumstance that provided an exception to the warrant requirement." So at the time of Roehler's accident, the binding appellate precedent of Shriner permitted a warrantless blood draw in an accident involving suspected criminal vehicular homicide.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals then explains that, "In its recent opinion in Lindquist, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized a narrow good-faith exception to the warrant requirement when a police officer "acts in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent" and "the binding precedent. . . specifically authorize[s] the behavior."

Since the accident occurred while State v. Shriner was still good law (i.e. before the United States Supreme Court ruling in McNeely), the Minnesota Court of Appeals then held, "Despite the factual differences between this case and Lindquist, we nevertheless conclude that law enforcement was acting under the limited good-faith exception set forth in Lindquist, and the warrantless blood draw taken from Roehler at the hospital was lawful."

MORAL OF THE STORY: The police can violate the Fourth Amendment as long as they do so in good faith.