Wednesday, October 14, 2015

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Trahan (Decided October 13, 2015, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published) which stands for the proposition that if the police fail to attempt to obtain a search warrant for a blood or urine DWI sample, then the Defendant cannot be charged with the crime of Refusal To Submit to Testing if he fails to provide  said sample.

In Trahan, the Defendant was stopped for erratic driving and things went down hill from there.  The officer noticed indicia of intoxication and Mr. Trahan was subsequently placed under arrest for DWI.

The Defendant was read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory at the Ramsey County Jail and was asked to provide a blood or urine sample.  Mr. Trahan agreed to provide a urine sample but the officer deemed the sample deficient so he requested the Defendant submit to a blood test.  Mr. Trahan refused to submit to the blood test and was subsequently charged with the crime of Refusal To Submit to Testing in the First Degree.

The Defendant challenged the constitutionally of the Test Refusal Statute and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that as to blood or urine (but not breath) test requests, the statute is unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeals recognized that if the police do not need to seek a search warrant for the sample, then the state may criminalize the refusal to provide the sample.  But if there is not a recognized exception the warrant requirement, then the Defendant may not be charged with refusal under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that in the Minnesota Supreme Court case of State v. Bernard, the Court had held that breath samples may be obtained without a warrant as a search of one's breath may be done as, "incidental to the arrest".  One exhales breath all the time and the police do not need to obtain a warrant to obtain a sample (Which is complete nonsense but that is what the Court ruled in Bernard).  But in Bernard, the Supreme Court also stated, "The differences between a blood test and a breath test are material, and not the least of those differences is the less-invasive nature of breath testing."

Trahan argued and the state did not dispute, that a warrantless blood test would not be justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed stating, "In Schmerber v. California, the United States Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the search-incident-to-arrest exception has 'little applicability with respect to searches involving intrusions beyond the body's surface.'...Unlike breath, blood does not naturally and regularly exit the body. And under Minnesota's DWI law, a blood draw can only be performed by a qualified medical professional.  Because a blood test here would have been highly intrusive, we conclude that a warrantless search of Trahan's blood would not have been constitutional under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement."   

The Court then looked at the "exigent-circumstances exception" to the warrant requirement and found that in this case, the exception did not apply.  

In Trahan, the State argued "...the "exigency" was the expiration of the statutory time frame while Trahan was arrested, taken to the jail, read the implied-consent advisory, made phone calls, and produced a questionable urine sample. The state argued that under the particular facts of this case, exigent circumstances would have justified a warrantless blood test". 

But the Court of Appeals disagreed, stating: "The circumstances here are more akin to a routine impaired-driving arrest: the record indicates that Trahan was agitated and difficult. These circumstances fall within "those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn." McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1561. Because no exigency would have prevented police from seeking a warrant before conducting a blood test, we conclude that a warrantless blood test would not have been constitutional under the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.



Moral of the Story: If the police ask you to take a blood test, tell them to go get a warrant.



If you or a loved one has been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

No comments:

Post a Comment