The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided May 1, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that an officer cannot deviate from the exact wording of the Minnesota DWI Search Warrant Advisory if the deviation is inaccurate or misleading.
In Nash, the Petitioner was stopped in Hennepin County by the Minnesota State Patrol. The trooper noted Nash appeared lethargic, his skin was sweaty, he had a “thick tongue” when speaking, and his pupils did not react to light. The trooper believed that Nash was under the influence, but she was not sure whether the cause was alcohol or a different substance. The trooper had Nash exit the vehicle and perform a horizontal-gaze- nystagmus (HGN) test, which is generally used to test for depressants. Nash also completed a one-leg balance test and a walk-and-tum test. The trooper thought that all three tests indicated that Nash was under the influence. Gerhard asked Nash if he was on any medications, and Nash replied that he was not.
Nash provided a preliminary breath test, which produced a 0.000 result. Nash then completed a fourth test, which did not reveal any signs of impairment. The trooper nonetheless told Nash that she believed he was under the influence and placed him under arrest.
The trooper applied for and obtained a search warrant for a blood or urine test. Next, while seated in her squad car with Nash in the back seat, the trooper told Nash, “I applied for a search warrant for a blood draw, and refusal to take a test is a crime.” Gerhard showed Nash the warrant, but she did not “let him hold it and look through it.”
The blood test result revealed the presence of methadone and the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked the Petitioner's license.
The Petitioner challenged the license revocation alleging the trooper did not read the search-warrant advisory required under Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, (3).
The District Court sustained the revocation but the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, stating:
"Minn. Stat. § 171.177 (2022) governs the revocation of driving privileges based on a search warrant for the collection of a blood or urine sample from a person suspected of driving while impaired. If such test results indicate “the presence of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, the commissioner shall revoke the person’s license or permit to drive.” Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 5. If a person refuses to submit to a blood or urine test as requested by a peace officer pursuant to a search warrant, then a test must not be given. Id., subd. 13. However, it is a crime for a person to refuse to submit to a chemical test of the person’s blood or urine pursuant to a search warrant under section 171.177. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(2) (2022)."
"Section 171.177, subdivision 1, requires that “[a]t the time a blood or urine test is directed pursuant to a search warrant... the person must be informed that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime.” Nash argues that he is entitled to rescission of his license revocation because the officer did not advise him that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime and instead merely advised him that she had applied for a search warrant for a blood draw and that refusal to take a test was a crime."
***
"This court has held that the advisory requirement in Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, is unambiguous, has no exceptions, and requires an officer to inform an individual of the criminal consequences of test refusal. State v. Mike, 919 N.W.2d 103, 110 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2019). We therefore apply the statute’s plain meaning, with guidance from caselaw."
***
In Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 368 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1985), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “[compliance with the procedures of the implied consent law is a prerequisite to revocation pursuant to the implied consent law.” 368 N.W.2d at 280. The supreme court reasoned that “the legislature intended that a driver’s license be revoked pursuant to the implied consent law . . . only if the provisions of the law were complied with by the police.” Id. at 281 (emphasis added). Because the police did not provide a statutorily required implied-consent advisory, the test results in Tyler “could not properly serve as the basis for a revocation of [Tyler’s] license pursuant to the implied consent law.” Id.
***
"The Jensen court applied the supreme court’s reasoning from Tyler and concluded that the commissioner may not revoke a driver’s license based on blood-test results under section 171.177, subdivision 5, unless the officer directing the test gives the driver the advisory required under subdivision 1 of the statute. 932 N.W.2d at 847. This court held that, because the peace officer in Jensen never warned the driver that refusing to submit to a blood test is a crime, the commissioner could not revoke her license based on her test results. Id. at 848 (reversing and remanding for the district court to rescind the license revocation).
"Under Jensen, it is clear that a license revocation cannot be sustained based on the results of a chemical test if the driver was not provided an advisory regarding the criminal consequences of failing to submit to a test. Id. at 846 (stating it was undisputed that law enforcement did not advise Jensen that refusal to submit to a blood test is a crime). But, as the commissioner notes, Jensen does not address the issue presented here: whether an advisory that deviates from the language of Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, is nonetheless adequate to sustain a revocation."
"The commissioner argues that “there is no specific form the advisory must take,” and that Nash “was accurately informed of the legal consequences of refusing to submit to the blood test that was requested.” The commissioner relies on McCormick v. Commissioner of Public Safety, in which this court announced the rule that whether an implied-consent advisory complies with statutory requirements “depends on whether the given advisory, considered in its context as a whole, is misleading or confusing.” 945 N.W.2d 55, 60 (Minn. App. 2020). The statute at issue in McCormick required that “[a]t the time a breath test is requested, the person must be informed . . . that refusal to submit to a breath test is a crime.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2(2) (2018) (emphasis added). The officer in McCormick informed the driver that “refusal to take a test is a crime,” and not that “refusal to submit to a breath test is a crime.” 945 N. W.2d at 57 (emphasis added)."
"McCormick argued that the statute required officers to read its language verbatim and that the officer’s failure to state “breath” directly before “test” misstated the law. Id. at 58. This court rejected that argument, noting that the plain language of the statute did not require officers to “read” or “recite” the statute’s language verbatim. Id. at 59. This court also noted that it had upheld advisories that deviated from the language of the implied-consent statute “so long as the information the officer provide[d] [was] not misleading or confusing.” Id. This court reasoned that, because the officer informed McCormick that “this is the breath test advisory” and that “refusal to take a test is a crime,” without mentioning any other test and offering only a breath test, the context of the advisory adequately informed McCormick that refusal to take a breath test is a crime. Id. at 60 (emphasis added). The advisory was therefore sufficient to sustain the revocation of McCormick’s driving privileges. Id.
"The McCormick rule is consistent with an earlier decision of this court in which it said that “[u]niformity in giving the implied consent advisory is highly encouraged” and recommended “that police officers read the exact words of the statute in order to avoid any possibility of confusion or improper deviation from the statute.” Hallock v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 372 N.W.2d 82, 83 (Minn. App. 1985). But this court also stated that if an officer deviates from the exact words of a statutory advisory, a revocation may nonetheless be based on that advisory so long as the advisory was not “an incorrect statement of the Minnesota law, or so confusing as to render the advisory illegal.” Id. (affirming district court’s order sustaining a driver’s license revocation)."
"We agree with the commissioner that the McCormick rule applies here. But for the reasons that follow, we disagree that the advisory in this case was adequate under that rule. See Jensen, 932 N.W.2d at 847 (applying to section 171.177 caselaw relied on to interpret the related implied-consent statutes). Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 2, provides that:
'The peace officer who directs a test pursuant to a search warrant shall direct a blood or urine test as provided in the warrant. If the warrant authorizes either a blood or urine test, the officer may direct whether the test is of blood or urine. If the person to whom the test is directed objects to the test, the officer shall offer the person an alternative test of either blood or urine. Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test only if a urine test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if a blood test was offered.'"
"In this case, the trooper told Nash, “I applied for a search warrant for a blood draw, and refusal to take a test is a crime.” As the commissioner concedes, if Nash had refused the blood test, the circumstances would not have supported a test-refusal charge because the trooper did not offer him a urine test. See Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 2 (“Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test only if a urine test was offered . . . Thus, the advisory was an inaccurate statement of Minnesota law and misleading. Nothing about the context of the trooper’s advisory changes our view. Although the search warrant authorized a blood or urine test, the trooper did not mention the urine test. And although the trooper “show[ed]” Nash the warrant, the commissioner does not claim, and the record does not suggest, that Nash had an opportunity to read the warrant before agreeing to submit to the test."
"In sum, the advisory informed Nash that he could be charged with a crime if he refused the blood test, even though the trooper had not offered Nash an alternative urine test. That was an inaccurate statement of law and misleading. The advisory therefore cannot serve as the basis for revocation of Nash’s driving privileges, and the revocation cannot be sustained. See Tyler, 368 N.W.2d at 280 (“Compliance with the procedures of the implied consent law is a prerequisite to revocation pursuant to the implied consent law.”); Jensen, 932 N.W.2d at 847 (applying to section 171.177 caselaw relied on to interpret the related implied-consent statutes)."
Moral Of The Story: You can't enforce the law if you do not read the law.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
