Brooks is Minnesota’s State v. McNeely. In McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that search warrants are required in some DWI cases before a blood alcohol sample is taken without consent, and that the dissipation of alcohol in the blood is not in and of itself an exigency that obviates the need for a warrant. In Brooks, which is actually the consolidation of three cases, the Court of Appeals originally said in 2012 that the single-factor exigency permitted warrantless tests. Brooks went up to the U.S. Supreme Court which promptly sent it back down with instructions to reconsider in light of McNeely.
The parties will submit the same briefs that were submitted to the Court of Appeals and oral arguments will then be settled. The respondent’s brief is due July 31.
Many will greet the accelerated review with enthusiasm. Word is that some district courts are delaying cases in hopes of getting more guidance on McNeely. And McNeely doesn’t apply if the person consents. Look for arguments over consent, especially given Minnesota’s punishment for test refusal. If it’s a crime to refuse, what is consent?