Brian Albert Patten v. Commissioner of Public Safety, A16-546

In May 2015 Brian Patten was arrested for suspected DWI and submitted to a DataMaster DMT‑G breath test after receiving the implied‑consent advisory.
The DataMaster produced two valid breath samples showing .091 and .087; the machine uses the lower of the two valid samples to report BAC.
Officer Meuwissen instructed Patten to “keep blowing” during the test; the DataMaster requires a blow rate ≥3 L/min, 1.5 L total volume, and a leveling slope to accept a sample.
Cross‑examination showed the machine’s screen displayed breath‑volume and instantaneous alcohol readings; graphs indicated Patten met minimum volume within ~5 seconds and was below .08 at that point, but the officer was not monitoring the screen in real time.
Patten argued the officer compelled additional breath volume beyond what statute required, which raised his indicated alcohol concentration above .08 and violated his substantive due‑process rights; the district court rejected this claim for lack of evidence of manipulation and sustained the license revocation.
Patten appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Patten failed to prove the DataMaster was improperly administered or that his due‑process rights were violated.

Issue	Patten's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s direction to continue blowing after an adequate sample violated substantive due process by causing Patten’s reported BAC to exceed .08	Officer ordered Patten to provide more than the legally adequate sample, which increased the reported BAC above the legal limit	The DataMaster’s programmed acceptance criteria and statutory procedures were followed; no evidence officer manipulated the test or treated Patten differently	Affirmed — Patten failed to show manipulation or provide scientific evidence that extra volume produced an inaccurate BAC; statutory testing sequence was followed and results presumed reliable

Brooks v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 584 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (holding drivers failed to prove officers manipulated breath tests or suffered direct, personal constitutional harm)
State v. Rader, 597 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (rejecting claim that requiring continued blowing after an adequate sample violated due process absent evidence of manipulation)
Jasper v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 642 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2002) (describing standard of review for license‑revocation findings)
State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) (explaining clear‑error standard for factual findings)
Harrison v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 781 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (noting de novo review for legal questions in implied‑consent proceedings)