Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / Minnesota Legal News / Court of Appeals affirms implied consent law
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's implied consent law in an opinion that seems to say a law enforcement officer does not actually need to get a warrant if the officer could have gotten a warrant.

Court of Appeals affirms implied consent law

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed the state’s implied consent law in an opinion that seems to say a law enforcement officer does not actually need to get a warrant if the officer could have gotten a warrant.

A three-judge panel released its opinion on State v. Bernard Monday, asserting that the Fourth Amendment does not bar criminalizing the refusal to submit to a breath alcohol test if the “circumstances established a basis for the officer to have alternatively pursued a constitutionally reasonable nonconsensual test by securing and executing a warrant.”

Bernard was charged with two counts of DWI –Test Refusal after he refused to submit to a breath test. Bernard was suspected of driving a vehicle while intoxicated. The charges were dismissed in Dakota County district court when the judge found that prosecutors had not proved the exigency necessary to justify a warrantless search. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision and remanded the case back to district court.

See the March 24 issue of Minnesota Lawyer for a more in-depth look at the case.

 

One comment

  1. this is insane, whats next I guess we have no more rights. I guess we don’t need a drivers license if we could have got one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top