In a huge win for our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling on Tuesday where a suspected drunk driver was sentenced to five years in prison for refusing to allow police draw his blood without a search warrant.
It all began three years ago when Todd Trahan was stopped by an officer on suspicion of driving under the influence. According to court records, the officer decided not to conduct field sobriety tests because of Trahan’s erratic behavior. Instead, the officer decided to place Trahan under arrest and conduct further tests at the police station. Trahan reportedly agreed to provide a urine sample, but authorities are disputing that sample as they claim Trahan may have tampered with it. To get a valid sample, officers asked Trahan to provide a blood sample. Trahan did not want to have his blood drawn, so officers charged him with felony DWI test refusal.
As part of a plea deal, Trahan pleaded guilty to DWI test refusal and received a five year prison sentence because he had past convictions on his record.
The Appeal Begins
Trahan and his lawyer took the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. They argued that Trahan right to due process had been violated because he refused a warrantless blood draw. Unfortunately for Trahan, his appeal fell on deaf ears and the court upheld the conviction.
While Trahan’s legal team was figuring out how next to pursue an appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in a different case that police may administer a breath test without a warrant if it’s pertinent to an arrest for drunk driving. Charging someone with refusal of a breath test does not violate their constitutional rights, but they left the topic of blood draws open for interpretation.
The ruling by the Supreme Court “reversed our holding on the constitutionality of the test-refusal statute and remanded to this court for reconsideration of that issue,” the appeals court said in its Tuesday ruling.
Upon re-exmaining the case, the Minnesota Appeals Court ruled 2-1 that a blood draw is inherently intrusive, and intrusive searches require a search warrant.
“A blood draw is undeniably intrusive: a needle is inserted into the skin to extract blood.” Due to it’s intrusive nature, unlike a breath test, a warrantless blood test would be unconstitutional, wrote Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks, who penned the decision for the two-judge majority.
“Because a warrantless search of Trahan’s blood would have been unconstitutional under these circumstances, Trahan’s fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches is implicated,” and his refusal of the unconstitutional test should not be punished, Halbrooks wrote.
The state did say there are plenty of other ways to conduct a legal DUI traffic stop. They recommended:
- Charging someone without testing their BAC.
- Charging someone with refusal if they fail to submit to a breath test.
- Obtaining a warrant for a blood draw.
All of those are viable options, but yesterday’s ruling is huge win for our Fourth Amendment protections. Judge Halbrooks put it best in his decision when he wrote that convenience should not and does not trump the protections guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution.
“We recognize that the available alternatives may not be as efficient as the current procedure under the test-refusal statute,” Halbrooks wrote. “But these alternatives serve the state’s compelling interest in securing the safety of its roadways without infringing on a driver’s fundamental right to refuse an unreasonable search of his blood. Because the test-refusal statute as applied fails strict scrutiny, Trahan’s right to due process under the Minnesota and United States constitutions was violated.”
Related source: Pioneer Press
