Make Payment
Call Today
(952) 913-1421
Call Today
(952) 913-1421

Court: search warrants generally required for DWI blood draws; Warrantless DWI Tests Outlawed

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.

Minnesota courts previously have ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol creates a single factor exigency. What that essentially means is that the courts have held that the state did not have to show any other reason to conduct a blood draw without a warrant under Minnesota’s implied consent law if probable cause existed to suspect a driver of drunk driving. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, says no so fast.

The nation’s highest court recognizes that alcohol dissipates in a relatively predictable manner, and some delay may occur as a suspect is transported to a facility where a blood sample can be taken. Generally, criminal defense lawyers know that the dissipation of alcohol varies from person to person, and may involve many different and complex factors. The high court also says that in the 47 years since the U.S. Supreme Court addressed warrantless blood draws in DWI cases in the Schmerber case in 1966, technology has made obtaining a warrant more streamlined.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in writing the opinion of a divided court that, “While the desire for a bright-line rule is understandable, the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach that would dilute the warrant requirement in a context where significant privacy interests are at stake.” The court says that law enforcement should generally be required to obtain a warrant before obtaining a blood sample in a DWI investigation, but the issue may have exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Sources:

Max Keller image
Attorney Max Keller
Max Keller

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Person using smartphone with blurred police lights background. charged with a drug crime based on text messages

Can You Be Charged With a Drug Crime Based on Text Messages Alone?

You can be charged with a drug crime based on text messages alone in Minnesota, especially when the messages show intent to purchase, sell, distribute, or traffic drugs. Prosecutors often use text messages to demonstrate intent to commit a drug crime, show a history of drug activity, link you to a specific phone, and corroborate physical evidence. Text messages often strengthen the probable cause required for the police to arrest and charge you. They are, however, not sufficient for a conviction without compelling supporting physical evidence.
Handcuffed man in beanie looking distressed during interrogation. police lie to you during an interrogation

Can the Police Lie to You During an Interrogation in Minnesota?

Criminal defendants who interact with police officers for the first time are often left wondering, “Can the police lie to you during an interrogation?” Police officers can lie to you during an interrogation. In fact, deception is a lawful and fully permitted police technique provided the officers do not use it to force a confession. Police often claim possession of non-existent evidence or witnesses to trick you into disclosing information that can aid their investigation.