The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that a person cannot lose their driver’s license for refusing to submit to a urine test if suspected of DUI when a police officer says it’s a crime not to.
Implied consent has been a hot topic in Minnesota, especially after the Supreme Court struck down the ability to criminalize the refusal of warrantless blood or urine tests in DUI cases back in June. Drivers can still be charged with a criminal offense for refusing to submit to a breath test, but the recent battle in the Minnesota Court of Appeals was over urine.
Last November, Tyler Lee Johnson was pulled over with a pill bottle in his car. The officer on the scene told Johnson that refusing to a urine or blood test, even though he didn’t have a warrant, would be a crime. However, the June ruling now means that a blood or urine draw taken without consent would be considered an unconstitutional search. Johnson’s driver’s license was suspended for his refusal to submit, but it was recently returned to him after a lower court ruled that he was given incorrect information about his right to refuse.
Court Of Appeals Agrees
The commissioner of public safety appealed the lower court’s ruling to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, but the appeal was rejected by the higher court. Simply put, the panel echoed what we preach on this blog all the time, that due process must be followed, because the ends don’t justify the means if the rights of American citizens are violated in order to get there.
“Under Thompson, Johnson cannot be criminally prosecuted for refusing to consent to the unconstitutional urine test in this case,” Judge Michelle Ann Larkin wrote today on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Thus, the implied-consent advisory, which stated that refusal to take a urine test is a crime, inaccurately advised Johnson that he faced a criminal penalty if he refused to take a urine test. By providing the inaccurate advisory, the state misinformed Johnson regarding the potential penalty for refusing to submit to a urine test and violated his right to due process, as established in McDonnell. We therefore affirm the district court’s order rescinding the revocation of Johnson’s license to drive.”
People place their faith in police officers to understand how due process works, but with an ever-changing legal system, sometimes they knowingly or unknowingly misinform the subject, which, regardless of their intent, is a violation of due process and thus your rights as an American. It’s one more way to challenge the legality of the criminal case against you, and one we always examine when looking at your case.
