Jesse John Susa v. Commissioner of Public Safety, A16-569

In July 2015 Jesse Susa was arrested for suspected DWI, read the implied-consent advisory, and offered blood or urine; no warrant was sought.
The deputy told Susa “refusal to take a test is a crime.” Susa provided a urine sample that tested 0.14 and his license was revoked.
Susa sought judicial review; the district court rescinded the revocation, finding constitutional error. The commissioner appealed.
Susa’s challenge rested on due-process grounds, asserting the advisory was misleading because criminal prosecution for refusing the urine test was not authorized.
The court considered recent precedent (Thompson, Trahan, Birchfield) holding warrantless blood/urine tests may be unconstitutional and that refusal cannot be criminally punished in those circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether advisory statement that "refusal is a crime" violated due process	Susa: advisory was misleading because criminal prosecution for refusing the urine test was not authorized; thus due-process violated	Commissioner: advisory was accurate when read and urine test permissible under implied-consent law; Fourth Amendment grounds control	Court: advisory was misleading in light of controlling precedent; due-process violation and rescission affirmed
Proper constitutional framework: Due Process vs. Fourth Amendment	Susa: claim rests on misleading advisory and McDonnell due-process line	Commissioner: challenge is essentially a Fourth Amendment search/seizure issue; exclusionary-rule doctrines apply	Court: treated claim as due-process (following McDonnell and Johnson); did not decide Fourth Amendment question
Whether good-faith or exclusionary-rule doctrines bar relief	Susa: not applicable to due-process misstatement claim	Commissioner: good-faith reliance on precedent should permit admission and preclude relief	Court: declined to extend Fourth Amendment good-faith exception to due-process advisory violations
Effect of defendant submitting to test on relief	Susa: submission does not defeat relief because the improper threat itself is the violation	Commissioner: voluntary submission argues against rescission	Court: submission does not negate violation; rescission remains appropriate

McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (advisory that falsely threatens criminal charges can violate due process and justify rescission)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood tests not justified by implied consent; states may not criminalize refusal to submit to certain unconstitutional tests)
State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016) (Minn. Sup. Ct. affirming that drivers cannot be criminally punished for refusing unconstitutional warrantless blood or urine tests)
State v. Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016) (related holding limiting criminalization of test refusal following Birchfield)
State v. Lindquist, 869 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2015) (discussing exclusionary rule and good-faith exception in Fourth Amendment context)