The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Susa v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided October 8, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you must show you relied on the inaccurate Implied Consent advisory before you can challenge the test result.
In Susa, the Petitioner was arrested for a DWI in Pine County. After the deputy read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory, Petitioner provided a urine sample. Analysis of the sample indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.14. The Commissioner Of Public Safety revoked Petitioner's driver's license.
Petitioner challenged the license revocation in district court arguing his due-process rights were violated because the implied-consent advisory was misleading in that it advised him that it was a crime to refuse to submit to a warrantless blood or urine test, which simply was not true.
In a memorandum in support of his motion, Petitioner argued that the warrantless urine test was unconstitutional because there were no valid exceptions to the warrant requirement and respondent had a right to refuse a warrantless blood or urine test under State v. Trahan, 870 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. App. 2015), aff'd, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016) (concluding test-refusal statute, which criminalized driver's refusal to take a warrantless blood test, was unconstitutional as applied to Trahan where there were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search of his blood). Petitioner also relied on McDonnell v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991), to support his argument that the implied-consent advisory was misleading and violated his due-process rights.
In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the district court's rescission order on McDonnell due-process grounds. Susa v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, No. A16-0569, 2016 WL 7188703, at *2 (Minn. App. Dec. 12, 2016). We concluded that respondent's due-process rights were violated by the misleading implied-consent advisory that threatened to criminally punish respondent for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood or urine test. Id. at *4. We reasoned that "[r]ecent holdings of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court make clear that the state cannot criminally punish respondent for his refusal to submit to either the blood or urine tests offered by the deputy.
The supreme court granted the commissioner's petition for review and stayed the proceedings pending final disposition in Morehouse v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety. In Morehouse, the Petitioner not even claim, much less establish, that he prejudicially relied on the implied-consent advisory, The Morehouse Court ruled Petitioner was not entitled to rescission of his license revocation under McDonnell.
Morehouse overruled Olinger v. Commissioner of Public Safety in which the Minnesota Supreme Court had previously ruled a party DID NOT have to show prejudicial reliance upon the advisory. Thus the Court of Appeals, in this case, uses Morehouse to reverse the district court, noting:
"At the time respondent petitioned for judicial review of his license revocation, this court had not required a showing of prejudicial reliance on a misleading implied-consent advisory. See Olinger v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 478 N.W.2d 806, 808 (Minn. App. 1991) (concluding McDonnell due-process violation occurs when police threaten criminal charges the state is not authorized to impose, without any showing of prejudicial reliance). Respondent contends that Johnson and Morehouse "fundamentally changed the rule of law with respect to the prejudicial effect of a misleading Implied Consent Advisory." But the supreme court in Morehouse and Johnson has now clarified that a McDonnell due-process violation has three elements, one of which requires proof of prejudicial reliance. The supreme court did not remand to the district court to give Morehouse an opportunity to develop a factual record on prejudicial reliance. 911 N.W.2d at 505."
"Applying Morehouse, as we are required to do by the supreme court's remand instructions, we are persuaded that respondent did not allege or establish the second element of a McDonnell due-process violation. Respondent did not testify at the evidentiary hearing, and he did not claim prejudicial reliance in his written submissions to the district court. Because the record does not establish that respondent prejudicially relied on the misleading implied-consent advisory in making the decision to submit to testing, respondent has not established a McDonnell due-process violation, and he is not entitled to rescission of his driver's license revocation on due-process grounds"
OUCH!
Moral Of The Story: If you have been misled, speak up!!
Morehouse overruled Olinger v. Commissioner of Public Safety in which the Minnesota Supreme Court had previously ruled a party DID NOT have to show prejudicial reliance upon the advisory. Thus the Court of Appeals, in this case, uses Morehouse to reverse the district court, noting:
"At the time respondent petitioned for judicial review of his license revocation, this court had not required a showing of prejudicial reliance on a misleading implied-consent advisory. See Olinger v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 478 N.W.2d 806, 808 (Minn. App. 1991) (concluding McDonnell due-process violation occurs when police threaten criminal charges the state is not authorized to impose, without any showing of prejudicial reliance). Respondent contends that Johnson and Morehouse "fundamentally changed the rule of law with respect to the prejudicial effect of a misleading Implied Consent Advisory." But the supreme court in Morehouse and Johnson has now clarified that a McDonnell due-process violation has three elements, one of which requires proof of prejudicial reliance. The supreme court did not remand to the district court to give Morehouse an opportunity to develop a factual record on prejudicial reliance. 911 N.W.2d at 505."
"Applying Morehouse, as we are required to do by the supreme court's remand instructions, we are persuaded that respondent did not allege or establish the second element of a McDonnell due-process violation. Respondent did not testify at the evidentiary hearing, and he did not claim prejudicial reliance in his written submissions to the district court. Because the record does not establish that respondent prejudicially relied on the misleading implied-consent advisory in making the decision to submit to testing, respondent has not established a McDonnell due-process violation, and he is not entitled to rescission of his driver's license revocation on due-process grounds"
OUCH!
Moral Of The Story: If you have been misled, speak up!!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, 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