Johnson v. Comm'r Safety, 911 N.W.2d 506

On Nov. 9, 2015, Tyler Lee Johnson crashed his car; officer found pills in the vehicle and arrested him on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance.
Officer administered field sobriety tests (which Johnson failed) and refused preliminary breath test; officer suspected impairment by drugs and arrested Johnson.
Officer read an implied-consent advisory that incorrectly stated refusal to submit to a urine test was a crime.
Johnson refused blood and urine tests; the Commissioner revoked his license under Minnesota’s implied-consent law.
District court rescinded the revocation as violating due process because the advisory threatened an impossible criminal penalty; the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Whether reading an inaccurate implied-consent advisory violates due process	Any legally inaccurate advisory violates due process under McDonnell	McDonnell requires actual prejudice/reliance; here Johnson refused tests so no prejudice	Reversed: no due process violation because Johnson did not submit to testing or rely on the advisory
Whether McDonnell creates a per se rule whenever advisory is legally inaccurate	McDonnell supports reversal where advisory is inaccurate	McDonnell requires three elements including submission and prejudicial reliance	Court: McDonnell requires (1) submission to test, (2) prejudicial reliance, (3) inaccurate advisory; all must be met

McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (establishes due-process framework when an inaccurate implied-consent advisory causes a driver to submit to testing)
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 887 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (court of appeals decision affirming district court rescission)
Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church, 877 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 2016) (court will not decide issues not briefed or argued)