Fourth Amendment | Ambrose Law Firm, PLLC

24 04 '16

Recapping U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Bernard v. Minnesota

“What is wrong with a Breathalyzer test when it can save lots of lives…?”[1] “[A Breathalyzer] is about as uninvasive as a search can possibly be…”[2] “Suppose you could set up a system where somebody could be reached within 10 or 15 minutes, and they would, in almost all circumstances, give a warrant.” “…[w]hat would…

19 04 '16

Previewing Bernard v. Minnesota: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow

Cop: “Will you take a breath test?” Driver: “Get a warrant.” Cop: “I don’t need one.” Driver: “My attorney just said you do.” Cop: “Your attorney is wrong.” Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) hears oral…

16 03 '16

Big-Brother Warrant Exception: Utility-Pole Camera Surveillance Does Not Violate Fourth Amendment

Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist? O’Brien: Of course he exists. Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me? O’Brien: You do not exist.[1] In today’s world, where can you go where there is not a camera? Whether seen, or unseen, you have a pretty good idea you are under constant surveillance the moment…

05 03 '16

MN DWI Update: SCOTUS Schedules Oral Arguments for Bernard; and MN Supreme Court Grants Review of Thompson

Undoubtedly, the hottest topic of discussion in DWI law across Minnesota and much of the nation is Bernard v. Minnesota.[1] Consolidated with Birchfield v. North Dakota and Beyund v. Levi, the United States Supreme Court just set Bernard’s oral argument for April 20, 2016. SCOTUS squeezed Bernard in as one of Its last remaining cases…

15 02 '16

Should I Challenge My DWI Case?

13 02 '16

Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement Used by Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Lester

Cops do not always need a warrant to search you, your vehicle, or your home. Searches conducted without a warrant are unreasonable, unless one of the many exceptions to the warrant requirement exist. Some of these exceptions include: consent, exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, the plain view doctrine, inventory searches, Terry stop and frisk,…

12 01 '16

Warrant Not Required to Analyze a Legally Obtained Blood Sample: State v. Fawcett

Warrant Not Required to Analyze a Legally Obtained Blood Sample Yesterday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals drew a line in the sand for determining when law enforcement needs to obtain a warrant in impaired-driving investigations. In State v. Fawcett, the court held “if the state lawfully obtains a blood sample for the purpose of chemical…

08 01 '16

Bernard v. Minnesota: What Happens to DWI Cases While We Wait for a Decision from SCOTUS?

What happens to DWI cases in Minnesota while we await SCOTUS’s decision in Bernard?[1] Will judges be willing to stay all DWI cases until SCOTUS issues an opinion? Or, stay just DWI Refusal cases since that is what Bernard entails? Will judges force defense counsel to litigate the issue and force the losing party to…

29 12 '15

MN Court of Appeals Finds DWI Refusal Law Unconstitutional Again: State v. Thompson

Minnesota’s DWI Refusal law took another hit on Monday. The court of appeals determined it is unconstitutional to charge someone with refusing to submit to a urine test in a DWI case in State v. Thompson. The decision came on the heels of the court of appeals’ opinion in State v. Trahan,[1] which ruled charging…

17 12 '15

Bernard v. Minnesota: Why Did SCOTUS Grant Review?

Last week, we blogged here about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) granting review of Bernard v. Minnesota. Two main questions are emerging from SCOTUS’s order last week: (1) the Court reviews about 10,000 petitions each year, why did It grant review of Bernard – a state court case reviewing the constitutionality of…