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 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

Knowing how to choose a criminal defense lawyer in Minneapolis, MN, can help you hire a lawyer who will prepare an effective defense strategy and fight for the best result from your case. One of the crucial tips when selecting a criminal defense lawyer is to vet those with relevant experience in cases like yours. You can only do this when you thoroughly understand the charges you are facing.
People anticipating an arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, might ask, “What is the role of a defense attorney during an arrest?” A skilled criminal defense attorney can explain your options, ensure the police follow the rules, and protect your rights. The attorney will build a solid defense, talk to the prosecutor, and fight for your best interests.
Knowing when to hire a criminal lawyer for your case in Minnesota can help protect your constitutional rights and turn the odds in your favor. You should retain a criminal lawyer immediately after learning you are under investigation, get arrested, or are charged with a crime. Seasoned criminal lawyers understand the criminal justice system, can build a winning defense strategy, and aggressively push for a positive outcome of your case.