Minnesota DWI Refusal Protections Eroded Further in State v. Lueck
Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court continued the appellate erosion of constitutional protections in DWI cases in State v. Lueck. This time it hit DWI Refusal cases. In Minnesota, it is a crime – DWI Refusal – if you refuse to submit to an evidentiary breath test (importantly, not the roadside PBT, but rather the DataMaster breath test requested at your local handy dandy police department or jail). In breath test refusal cases, officers must read you the Minnesota Breath Test Advisory, which includes warning you refusing to test is a crime and whether you would like to contact an attorney before deciding whether to test. In blood or urine test cases, an officer must obtain a search warrant and then ask you whether you will submit to a blood or urine test, or so we thought.
In Lueck, he was arrested on suspicion of DWI and law enforcement obtained a search warrant for his blood. Lueck refused to submit to that blood test pursuant to the search warrant. The officer then said “so, you’re refusing both a blood and a urine test”. Lueck conceded that he refused to submit to urine testing. Generally, longstanding supreme court precedent requires cops to obtain a warrant when asking for a blood or urine test in DWI cases. See Birchfield, Trahan, and Thompson. Here, as Lueck correctly argued, the officer should have obtained a warrant to ask Lueck to submit to urine testing. However, in its perpetual erosion of DWI precedent and constitutional protections, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined the warrant only needed to state one method of testing (blood or urine) and the driver only needs to refuse that one method of testing. The court decided it was immaterial whether law enforcement had a warrant for urine testing when Lueck already refused the warranted blood test.
Further, Minnesota Statutes section 171.177, subdivision 2 states “[a]ction 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.” The supreme court believed law enforcement complied with this requirement because they obtained the search warrant for blood testing and did offer a urine test when Lueck refused the blood test. In a practical sense, often law enforcement officers obtain warrants that state they are asking to search a person’s “blood or urine” or “blood and urine”. In those situations, they will likely pass legal muster without too much trouble. Now, because of its decision in Lueck, officers really only need to get a warrant for blood or urine, ask the subject to take the test pursuant to the designated method, and casually ask for the alternative (without a warrant), if they refuse the first test.
On the constitutional question in Lueck, the Minnesota Supreme Court spent a whopping two paragraphs on the issue. The court noted “Birchfield and Trahan clearly provide that a test-refusal conviction based on refusing a blood test does not violate the Fourth Amendment if there was a warrant for a blood test. Because Lueck’s test-refusal conviction was based on refusing only a blood test and a warrant authorized the blood test, we hold that Lueck’s test-refusal conviction does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Say what. The court just completely skipped over the request for the urine test without a warrant. Apparently, it does not matter. Which just further solidifies the court’s unrelenting pace of not caring about constitutional issues when it comes to DWI cases. Lueck involved a head-on collision. Many other impaired-driving related incidents splash across the news on the daily. It appears the court just wants to get to the result of upholding convictions and appearing “tough on DWIs” regardless of what the constitution or prior precedent holds. This ends-justifies-the-means approach is a dangerous one. Good luck to all of us fighting for constitutional rights.
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. Criminal Defense Attorney Woodbury, OWI Lawyer Wisconsin, DWI Attorney Minnesota.