Keith Charles Lexvold v. Commissioner of Public Safety
A16-610
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- At 1:23 a.m. on July 26, 2015, police stopped Keith Lexvold driving an ATV for poor lighting, lane use, and speeding; he had bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol.
- Lexvold performed three field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test (PBT) showing .115; he was arrested for DWI and taken to a detention center.
- At the center he was read the implied-consent advisory, asked “Will you take the Breath test?” and responded “Yep”; lines on the form crossed out blood/urine options.
- Lexvold declined an attorney consult, provided an adequate breath sample, and the official test showed .12; the officer certified probable cause and the Commissioner revoked his license.
- Lexvold sued to rescind the revocation, arguing (1) procedural due-process violation from a “conviction” notation on his driving record, (2) field sobriety tests and PBT were warrantless searches, (3) breath test lacked valid consent, and (4) the test-refusal statute/implied-consent advisory violated substantive due process and the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine.
- The district court sustained the revocation; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for procedural due-process claim over "conviction" notation on driving record | Lexvold: notation deprived him of due process and caused harm requiring remedy | Commissioner: Lexvold failed to show personal, actual, or imminent harm traceable to the notation and remedied by this court | No standing; claim dismissed |
| Are field sobriety tests and PBT warrant-requiring searches? | Lexvold: tests are searches that required a warrant | Commissioner: officer needed only reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct Terry-type investigatory tests, including PBT | Warrant not required; tests lawful under reasonable-suspicion standard |
| Was the warrantless breath test unconstitutional because consent was involuntary? | Lexvold: his assent was mere acquiescence to implied-consent advisory and threat of criminal penalty | Commissioner: consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; advisory was accurate for breath tests | Consent was voluntary; breath test admissible |
| Is the test-refusal statute / implied-consent advisory unconstitutional or an unconstitutional condition? | Lexvold: statute infringes right to refuse warrantless searches; advisory coerces surrender of rights | Commissioner: breath tests are constitutional under search-incident-to-arrest; refusal penalty valid for breath tests | Statute/advisory constitutional as applied to breath tests; no unconstitutional-conditions violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013) (governs voluntariness analysis for implied-consent and consent to chemical tests)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (Supreme Court: breath tests may be searched incident to arrest; warrants required for blood in many cases)
- State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015) (Minn. Supreme Court: test-refusal statute constitutional as applied to breath tests)
- State v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. App. 2012) (Terry-type stops allow further intrusions like field sobriety tests when reasonable suspicion exists)
- State v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316 (Minn. 1981) (officer may administer PBT on specific, articulable facts supporting suspicion of impairment)