800 N.W.2d 805
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ellingson was arrested for driving while impaired after a speeding stop at 12:13 a.m. on May 3, 2009; preliminary breath test showed .09 in alcohol concentration.
- At the police station, Ellingson submitted a urine sample at 1:12 a.m. and the test indicated an alcohol concentration of .08 or more.
- The district court denied Ellingson’s petition to rescind the implied-consent revocation, holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless urine collection.
- A BCA forensic scientist testified that bladder alcohol concentration changes over time due to continuous urine production, potentially decreasing within minutes.
- The scientist stated retrograde extrapolation cannot reliably determine past urine alcohol concentration because of multiple variable factors.
- The central issue was whether the exigent-circumstances exception applies to warrantless urine collection, analogous to blood/breath tests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exigent circumstances apply to urine collection? | Ellingson argues the exception does not apply to urine samples. | Ellingson argues rapid urine alcohol changes do not occur like blood/breath changes. | Exigent circumstances justify warrantless urine collection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (urine, blood, or breath tests implicate the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202 (Minn. 2009) (exigency from rapid dissipation of alcohol creates exception)
- State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (upholding warrantless blood test under exigent circumstances)
- State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 1992) (exigent-search framework for reasonableness of searches)
- Kramer v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 706 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. App. 2005) (burden on Commissioner to prove revocation proper by preponderance)