Tag: Warrantless Searches

Max Keller of Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys recently won the first known victory on the McNeely warrantless DWI testing issue in an Order from Judge Grunke in a Stearns Co. Implied Consent hearing challenging a Driver’s License Revocation. Two other Judges recently issues similar rulings in Washington County and Sibley County.
If you have a criminal DWI case or criminal DWI test refusal case, and/or civil implied consent driver’s license revocation cases pending, you may have heard of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in McNeely v. Missouri issued 4-17-13. In McNeely the U.S. Supreme Court held that Warrantless DWI Tests are illegal without consent or “exigency circumstances.” The U.S. Supreme Court said that Missouri could not take a non-consensual blood test from a driver in a standard DWI case (no accident) without either a warrant OR a showing of special circumstances like an emergency stemming from injured persons in a car accident (i.e. “exigent circumstances”).
In the last post, this blog began a discussion of high court rulings at the federal and state levels concerning whether a warrant is necessary under the Constitution to draw blood during a driving while impaired investigation.
During the month of December, the holidays are upon us. It is not uncommon for there to be holiday parties with holiday drinks. Along with the holiday festivities, however, comes an increased presence of law enforcement on Minnesota streets. It is important to never forget that a person has invaluable rights to protect himself from the personal and professional damage of a drunk driving charge.
he issue of warrantless DWI tests and coerced consent to testing was argued before the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Brooks case on September 11, 2013. For more information, check this blog later this week. For more information about warrantless DWI testing and Minnesota DWI’s look here: Minnesota DWI Defense Attorneys.
Today the United States Supreme Court decided the DWI case of McNeely v. Missouri. We have previously blogged on this case several times. In summary, the high Court said that police cannot take a DWI blood sample from a driver without his consent where they also did not have a warrant. This means that Warrantless DWI Tests are unconstitutional, illegal, and should not be allowed. Thus any DWI test evidence gathered without a warrant should be tossed out by a Judge.
The United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the human bloodstream is not a sufficient justification by itself to avoid the warrant requirement to conduct a blood draw in a routine drunk driving investigation. The long awaited McNeely decision (we previously previewed the McNeely case and its potential impact on Minnesota DWI cases last month) says that circumstances may arise in individual cases that make obtaining a warrant impractical, but the natural dissipation alone is insufficient to conduct a warrantless blood draw after a driving while impaired arrest.
An extremely important DWI case from Missouri dealing with warrantless DWI testing was argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 9, 2013. Although this McNeely case came from Missouri, based on Missouri law and is being argued in Washington, D.C. before the highest court in the land, it has the potential to destroy the theoretical underpinnings of Minnesota DWI and implied consent case law.
Every state in the union has laws prohibiting drunk driving. In association with driving while impaired statutes, states generally have implied consent laws in place which mandate that drivers who fail a DWI test, or refuse a test, automatically lose their driver’s license before they have even been convicted, subject to the right to appeal the DL Revocation by filing an Implied Consent Petition.