The Minnesota DWI Defense blog is reporting that the Supreme Court will issue a decision in State v. Brooks tomorrow.
The decision will be the court’s first opportunity to rule on whether police need a warrant to take blood, breath and urine tests of suspected drunken drivers.
The court was also asked if someone can “consent” to a test if saying no means the driver will be charged with a crime?
Brooks is the consolidation of three DWI cases: two from Scott County and one from Hennepin County. In all three arrests, Wesley Eugene Brooks consented to the tests. Prosecutors argue that there are special circumstances that made a warrant unnecessary in DWI stops.
The defense argues that that a DWI stop alone is not reason to take someone’s blood, breath or urine without their consent and doing so is a violation of their constitutional rights.