A Minnesota man challenging the constitutionality of the state’s implied consent law lost his case in front of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Monday.
Under the law, a person suspected of driving under the influence can be charged with a separate crime if they refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, even if the police officer does not have a warrant.
Enter Wesley Eugene Brooks. He has been stopped for DUI three times – once in Shakopee, once in Minneapolis and once in Prior Lake – between July of 2009 and January of 2010. In two instances, Brooks provided a warrantless urine sample, and in the other he provided a warantless blood sample after being told he could be charged with a more serious crime for refusing to provide the sample.
Supreme Court’s Decision Changes Things
Brooks challenged the constitutionality of the warrantless search at the Minnesota Supreme Court in October 2013, but the court ruled that he wasn’t coerced into providing the sample. However, that wasn’t the end of his case. Back in June, another drunk driving case had made its way to the United States Supreme Court. In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that since blood and urine tests are inherently more intrusive, it would be unconstitutional to punish drivers for refusing to submit to a warrantless invasive test.
Under the new precedent, Brooks again challenged the legality of his arrests. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals again ruled against him. In their decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the constitutionality of warrantless blood or urine testing does not apply retroactively. Instead, the ruling has effectively created new rules of law after his conviction.
Now, we’re not condoning Brooks’ actions, but that decision from the Court of Appeals leaves us scratching our head, especially since the Minnesota Supreme Court has already retroactively applied the US Supreme Court’s decision to previous cases. Judge Michelle Larkin, who spoke on behalf of the three-panel Court of Appeals, noted that the US Supreme Court ruling could apply in some cases, but they felt it did not apply in this case.
Considering how fervently Brooks has fought his conviction at other levels, it seems likely that he’ll try to bring his case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would certainly be an interesting trial, as it could impact previous cases where the driver was coerced into providing an invasive and warrantless blood or urine sample. We’ll keep an eye on Brooks’ future appeals.
