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 criminal 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 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

Getting falsely accused of domestic violence in Minnesota may put you at risk of losing your job, custody of your children, or even your home. You may face criminal charges and the accusation may damage your reputation in the community, as people will now view you as an abuser. False domestic violence accusations often happen when couples are in a contentious relationship with a risk of divorce.
The top reasons for license suspension in Minnesota include driving under the influence of alcohol, repeated traffic violations, and failure to appear in court or pay fines. Failure to pay child support, criminal convictions and felonies, medical conditions/disabilities, and drag racing can also lead to license suspension. The suspension takes away your driving privileges, preventing you from driving legally.
Motorists arrested for allegedly driving while impaired might wonder, “Can you refuse a breathalyzer?” In Minnesota, the implied consent law requires a person licensed to drive, control, or operate a vehicle to agree to a chemical test to check for alcohol or other intoxicants in that person’s body. Refusing to submit to a breathalyzer or another chemical test is a crime, often charged as a gross misdemeanor.