Joshua Lloyd Gangestad v. Commissioner of Public Safety
A16-729
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Early morning stop and arrest for DWI of Joshua Gangestad; transported to Mille Lacs County Jail.
- Officer read Minnesota implied-consent advisory stating Minnesota law "requires you to take a test" and that "refusal to take a test is a crime."
- Gangestad declined counsel, then consented to a urine test; no warrant was obtained; urine result = .132 alcohol concentration.
- Commissioner revoked Gangestad’s license under Minn. Stat. § 169A.52; Gangestad filed an implied-consent petition seeking rescission.
- District court found consent valid (so no Fourth Amendment violation on that basis) but held the advisory was misleading and violated due process; rescinded the revocation.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the misleading advisory violated due process and declining to resolve the Fourth Amendment questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless urine test violated Fourth Amendment | Gangestad: test obtained without warrant violated Fourth Amendment | Commissioner: Gangestad consented; consent is a valid exception to warrant requirement | Court did not decide Fourth Amendment issue because due-process ruling dispositive |
| Whether exclusionary rule should apply to bar test/result | Gangestad: exclusionary rule required rescission if constitutional violation | Commissioner: exclusionary rule inappropriate here | Not reached; court resolved case on due-process ground |
| Whether implied-consent advisory violated due process by misinforming about criminal exposure | Gangestad: advisory threatened criminal charges state could not impose (misleading/inaccurate) | Commissioner: advisory was accurate when read; did not mislead | Held: advisory was misleading and violated due process; revocation rescinded |
| Effect of consent on due-process analysis | Commissioner: consent cures any infirmity from advisory for Fourth Amendment purposes | Gangestad: consent does not cure due-process violation from misleading advisory | Court: consent does not change due-process analysis; advisory’s inaccuracy is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (advisory threatening unauthorized criminal charges violates due process)
- Steinolfson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 478 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. App. 1991) (commissioner cannot benefit from an advisory found to misinform drivers)
- State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016) (state may not criminally punish refusal to submit to a warrantless urine test under search-incident-to-arrest)
- State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2012) (standard of review: due-process questions are legal issues reviewed de novo)