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

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Implied Consent

On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about criminal penalties for drivers who refuse to take sobriety tests. The case has serious implications for thousands of drivers throughout the country who are stopped under suspicion of DWI each year.

Implied Consent

At the center of the debate is the issue of implied consent. Implied consent is consent granted through a person’s action or inaction. In DWI cases, states use the idea of implied consent to say that drivers voluntarily agree to submit to sobriety tests if they have been stopped for a DWI as a condition for using public roads.

The Key Issues

Opponents of implied consent statutes, including almost every St. Paul DWI defense attorney, claim that requiring drivers to submit to sobriety tests is a violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment freedoms. The nature of the test, blood or breath is immaterial, because no person should be criminalized for refusing an unlawful search.

Supporters argue that implied consent laws are one of the best ways to prevent drunk driving accidents. The cornerstone of the argument is that driving is a privilege, not a right, and drivers must submit to sobriety tests in order to promote the public good.

Changes in communications technology have put the ideas of implied consent and warrantless arrests in the spotlight, according to a St. Paul criminal defense attorney. During oral arguments, the Justices argued mobile technology allows officers to communicate with judges and secure warrants for DWI arrests any time, eliminating the need for implied consent.

Impact On DWI

Observers in the courtroom believe the Supreme Court will decide against the state of Minnesota, and rule felony charges for refusing to take the test unconstitutional. The Court is likely to prohibit criminal penalties for people who refuse to take sobriety tests, unless the State presents a warrant at the time of the request. It is also likely that the Court will continue to support civil penalties, such as the suspension of the driver’s license, for test refusals.

A St. Paul criminal defense attorney will be more equipped to fight a DWI arrest when clients are no longer required to take a sobriety test that is admissible in court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected in just a few weeks, and most legal observers expect the Court to continue its current trend of protecting citizens against unlawful search and seizure, as well as warrantless arrests.

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.

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

Cinematic Court of Law and Justice Trial Proceedings. Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.
Court of Justice Trial. Pre-Trial Motions Hearing

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.
Man in handcuffs. Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.