Minnesota court approves warrantless urine collection in DWI case

In the United States, the protection of citizen’s rights in the legal process is invaluable. We are given the benefit of the doubt that we are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we are provided a multitude of rights that protect us from being treated as “criminals.”

We have the right against being subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, a point that certainly applies to cases of suspected drunk driving.  However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently made a ruling that limits DWI suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights in an investigation.

In the past, Intoxilyzer results were evidence that went far in solidifying convictions against drunk driving defendants in Minnesota and throughout the country. More recently, however, the accuracy of those tests has been a point of controversy due to flaw in the Intoxilyzer source code, which the State and the manufacturer refused to turn over for years, tying up the courts with endless litigation for a long time. Courts found flaws in the breathalyzer devices, which left prosecutors with less evidence to work with when pursuing drunk driving charges.

In 2009, an officer suspected a woman of driving under the influence and, therefore, pulled her over to investigate the situation. Knowing that a breath test wasn’t necessarily going to prove reliable in court, the officer decided that he had a right to collect a urine sample from the DWI suspect.

Minnesota is an implied consent state. When it came to urine samples, however, the scope of implied consent was somewhat ambiguous. The state’s appeals court recently ruled that the officer was in the right to require a urine sample from the suspect.

If he had waited for a warrant before getting the sample, the suspect’s sample might have failed to show the driver’s level of alleged intoxication at the time when she was pulled over. That scientific detail inspired the appeals court to conclude that there was an “exigent circumstance” that made it legal for the officer to collect the urine sample, even without a search warrant, in a DWI case.

As a result of the ruling, the female defendant’s drunk driving conviction was affirmed. This ruling sets a precedent for future Minnesota DWI/DUI cases, making it easier for law enforcement to collect urine samples from suspects. What do you think about the court’s decision? Does it violate suspects’ rights?

Source

theNewspaper.com: “Minnesota: Appeals Court Expands DUI Implied Consent Reach,” 8 Jul. 2011

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.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
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

Digital Evidence in Sex Crime Cases: How Your Online Activity Can Be Used Against You in Minnesota

Prosecutors in Minnesota use digital evidence in sex crime cases to connect suspects to crimes. They analyze the chronological order of online events and statements to show intent, motive, or premeditation. The common types of evidence used in sex crime investigations include direct, actual, and circumstantial evidence.

Can You Be Charged With a DUI If You’re Sleeping in Your Car in Minnesota?

One of the questions DUI lawyers in the state often answer is: Can you be charged with a DUI if you’re sleeping in your car? You can face DUI charges in Minnesota even if you are not actively operating your car. The “physical control” law states that anyone with the capacity to drive a vehicle while intoxicated can get arrested and charged with DUI.

How Prosecutors Use Text Messages in Minnesota Drug Cases

Prosecutors use text messages in Minnesota drug cases to prove circumstantial evidence. Text messages can prove intent or motive to distribute drugs. Knowing how your text messages may be used against you in a drug crime case can help you plan an effective defense strategy. That’s why you should involve a Minnesota drug crime attorney immediately after you get arrested, charged, or discover the police are investigating you for a drug crime. Your lawyer can carefully examine your text messages and determine the best way to counter the prosecution’s case.