932 N.W.2d 844
Minn. Ct. App.2019Background
- Patrol Sergeant Paul Mathews arrested Pauline Jensen after she allegedly struck a child with her car; she exhibited signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests.
- Mathews obtained a search warrant, had Jensen's blood drawn at a medical facility, and the BCA reported blood-alcohol concentration over the 0.08 statutory limit.
- The Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Jensen's license prehearing under Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subdivision 5, based on the blood test results.
- Jensen petitioned for judicial review, arguing the revocation was invalid because Mathews did not warn her that refusing the test is a crime (as required by Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1) and she was not given an opportunity to consult counsel.
- The district court upheld the revocation, reasoning that a warrant and probable cause to charge CVO causing bodily harm eliminated any option to refuse and rendered the warning irrelevant.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the statutory refusal-is-a-crime warning is a mandatory prerequisite to a prehearing revocation under § 171.177.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to warn that refusing a blood/urine test is a crime invalidates a prehearing revocation under Minn. Stat. § 171.177 | Jensen: warning is statutorily required and a prerequisite to prehearing revocation; its omission requires rescission of the revocation | Commissioner: warning unnecessary here because a warrant and probable cause meant blood could be obtained despite refusal, so failure to warn is irrelevant | Court: Reversed — warning is mandatory; failure to give it precludes prehearing revocation under § 171.177 |
| Whether Jensen had a right to consult counsel before the blood draw authorized by warrant | Jensen: she was denied opportunity to consult counsel prior to the test | Commissioner: no such right applies when testing is authorized by a search warrant | Court: Jensen’s claim fails; Rosenbush holds there is no right to consult counsel before a warrant-authorized blood draw |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 368 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1985) (warning requirement must be complied with before revoking license under implied-consent framework)
- State v. Mike, 919 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. App. 2018) (statutory refusal-is-a-crime warning is unambiguous and required even when a warrant authorizes the draw)
- State v. Rosenbush, 931 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 2019) (no right to consult counsel before a blood draw authorized by a search warrant)
- Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 831 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. App. 2013) (standard of de novo review for disputed statutory interpretation in revocation petitions)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood tests under the Fourth Amendment)