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

Warrantless blood tests in DWI cases, Missouri says no in McNeely, states disagree, P 1

Many of the stories on this blog directly involve issues that directly arise under Minnesota’s implied consent and driving while impaired laws. However, Minnesota criminal defense attorneys know that violations of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution can arise in DWI cases all across the country.

In other situations, legal issues can arise in other states that parallel the issues facing Minnesota courts. This blog recently discussed the parallel arguments concerning the reliability of the Intoxilyzer breath testing machine that are being raised in Florida and Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has the Intoxilyzer issue under review and is expected to issue a ruling that involves some 4000 Minnesota DWI and implied consent cases, although the high court does not have a deadline for issuing its rulings.

Recently, the Missouri Supreme Court sided with the trial court judge in ruling that a warrantless blood draw in a routine DWI case violated the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. The prosecutor who lost that case says he intends to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue of blood tests in DWI cases varies from state to state. Minnesota authorizes the use of blood tests in the implied consent and driving while impaired statutes. The laws provide specific procedures for how, and who, can draw a blood sample. Over the years, challenges have been brought to the taking of blood samples without a warrant as being unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

The Missouri decision (McNeely v. Missouri) requires law enforcement to get a warrant to draw blood in a routine DWI case in that state. That ruling differs from the law in Minnesota, but the decision shows a growing spilt among states on the issue, despite a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an alcohol-related car accident.

Sources: AP via Southeast Missourian, “Mo. Supreme Court rejects warrantless DWI blood test in Cape County case,” Dana Fields, Jan. 18, 2012

Minnesota Supreme Court, “State v. Shriner, A07-181,” May 30, 2008

Minnesota Court of Appeals, “Harrison v. Commissioner of Public Safety, A09-1949,” May 4, 2010

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.