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

Warrantless DUI/DWI Tests Tossed in McNeely Opinion by Supreme Court

Today the United States Supreme Court decided the DWI case of McNeely v. Missouri. We have previously blogged on this case several times. In summary, the high Court said that police cannot take a DWI blood sample from a driver without his consent where they also did not have a warrant. This means that Warrantless DWI Tests are unconstitutional, illegal, and should not be allowed. Thus any DUI/DWI test evidence gathered without a warrant should be tossed out by a Judge.

Because the police in the Missouri case did NOT have a warrant, and didn’t even try to get one, AND because the driver refused to consent to testing, the Supreme Court ruled that the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Therefore the results of the DUI/DWI blood test, and the criminal charge based on it, were tossed out, or suppressed and dismissed, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case means that, since Warrantless DWI testing has now been declared illegal by the highest court in the land, overruling prior Minnesota cases, the theoretical underpinnings of all of Minnesota DWI criminal laws and implied consent laws are ALL gone.  This includes the bizarre “crime” of DWI test refusal, which only exists in Minnesota and a few other states.

Minnesota DWI Attorney Max A. Keller, and other leading criminal defense attorneys, are still digesting & sifting through his far-reaching case which has obliterated Minnesota’s criminal DWI and implied consent pre-conviction driver’s licsense case law. So, for a more in-depth analysis, check back here later.  In the meantime, you may want to read this analysis by a leading national commentator on the SCOTUS website.

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.