MN Supreme Court Gives Officers More Leeway in DWI Cases

**gopherpuckfan** · 05-30-08, 05:11 PM

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S461248.shtml?cat=1

High court gives police more leeway in DWI cases

ST. PAUL (AP) - Minnesota law enforcement officers have more power to order blood tests without a warrant in cases where a suspected drunken driver kills or seriously injures someone else.
By a 5-2 ruling Friday, the state Supreme Court reversed previous decisions that supressed blood-alcohol evidence obtained from a woman without permission soon after she was involved in 2006 head-on collision in Burnsville.
The majority held that waiting for a warrant could have caused key evidence against the woman to disappear because alcohol levels can drop as time elapses. She faces seven criminal charges, including several felonies.
Justice Christopher Dietzen says an officer's finding that there was probable cause of alcohol impairment was enough to justify the blood draw done at a hospital within 45 minutes of the crash.
In her dissent, Justice Helen Meyer warns that the ruling "erodes the right of citizens in Minnesota to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

**MacLean** · 05-30-08, 05:13 PM

We have that ability here, I sorta took it for granted most States did.

Funny story here though, even if the dirtbag is passed out we have to read them their implied consent warning and Miranda warning.

**gopherpuckfan** · 05-30-08, 05:16 PM

We've been able to do it, but the drunk lady in the story challenged it. The court ruling solidifies our position.

**lewisipso** · 05-30-08, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by maclean

We have that ability here, I sorta took it for granted most States did.

Funny story here though, even if the dirtbag is passed out we have to read them their implied consent warning and Miranda warning.

I just did that. Then had to mark the form unable to sign.

**TheeBadOne** · 05-31-08, 10:08 AM

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/...70181-0530.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3wXkv1VW54

**Ducky** · 05-31-08, 12:59 PM

Hot damn.

When law enforcement has probable cause to believe a defendant has committed the offense of criminal vehicular homicide or operation under Minn. Stat. § 609.21 (2006), it is important that the defendant‟s blood be tested within 2 hours of the accident causing injury to or the death of another. The rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates a single-factor exigent circumstance that will justify the police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant, provided that the police have probable cause to believe that defendant committed criminal vehicular homicide or operation.

**jmur5074** · 05-31-08, 08:01 PM

Threads merged.

**Cross240** · 06-01-08, 02:14 AM

Tennessee state law is similar to that. If they are involved in a MVA with bodily harm or death we can hold them down for the nurses to take the blood. They dont have a choice in the matter, that goes for passengers in the vehicles as well.

Just a regular DUI arrest we still have implied consent.

**jcsdscott** · 06-01-08, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by maclean

We have that ability here, I sorta took it for granted most States did.

Funny story here though, even if the dirtbag is passed out we have to read them their implied consent warning and Miranda warning.

same here; and with a Class A injury/accident, they can't refuse the blood draw.

**JAYBIRD33081** · 06-01-08, 07:02 AM

well in them cases you have to get them blood test right away. The longer you have to wait the more alcohol is gonna be metabolized and the tests wont show what the BAL was at the time of the accident.