DWI Test Refusal Just Got Tougher: What State v. Torrez Means for Defense Strategy?
This month, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the ruling in State v. Torrez, holding that the State did not need to prove to a jury that police had probable cause for DWI when a blood or urine test is ordered via search warrant. This decision marks a significant shift in how DWI test refusal cases will be handled, emphasizing the importance of pretrial motions rather than trial defenses.
In July 2020, Crookston police responded to a report of a possible domestic assault involving a man driving a Chevy Silverado. Officers pulled the driver over, who matched the description, and observed signs of stimulant drug use. After field sobriety tests, the driver was arrested on suspicion of DWI. A judge issued a search warrant for a blood or urine test, but the driver refused to submit to testing. Under Minnesota law, it is a crime to refuse to submit to a chemical test of blood or urine as required by a search warrant. The driver was charged with first-degree test refusal.
Before trial, the defense attorney asked the court to instruct the jury that the prosecution must prove the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the driver was impaired while driving. This requirement traditionally applies in DWI test refusal cases. However, the district court declined the request, reasoning that a valid search warrant had already satisfied the probable cause requirement. The driver was convicted and sentenced to 72 months in prison. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, which ultimately led to the Minnesota Supreme Court granting review.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that when a chemical test is ordered by warrant under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(2), the State is not required to prove probable cause at trial. Because a judge must find probable cause to issue a warrant in the first place, the Court reasoned that the warrant itself satisfies this requirement. As a result, the question of probable cause has been removed from the jury’s consideration in warrant-based test refusal cases.
The Torrez ruling narrows the scope of trial defenses in DWI blood and urine test refusal cases. When a warrant is obtained for a blood or urine test, defense attorneys can no longer argue the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that officers lacked probable cause to request a test. If a search warrant was issued improperly or based on insufficient evidence, that challenge must be raised through a motion to suppress rather than in front of a jury. Ultimately, after State v. Torrez, the battle over probable cause in test refusal cases must be fought earlier, making pretrial motions more important than ever.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DWI Lawyer Woodbury, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minnesota, DWI Attorney Minnesota.