871 N.W.2d 39
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Aug. 4, 2014 Officer Arens arrested Kristin Poeschel for DWI after observing signs of intoxication and transported her to the public safety office and then jail.
- Officer read the implied-consent advisory; Poeschel called an attorney by phone before testing and told the officer she wanted an additional test while on that call.
- Poeschel then agreed to provide a urine sample (stating she would do so because she was required to) and did not request phone access after the state-administered test.
- Laboratory testing showed a 0.141 alcohol concentration; the Commissioner revoked Poeschel’s license and she sought judicial review.
- District court sustained the revocation, finding consent to the urine test voluntary, the implied-consent summary advisory not misleading, and no denial of the statutory right to an additional test.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer must offer posttest phone access to arrange an independent chemical test when driver told officer she wanted an additional test but made no posttest phone request | Poeschel: officer should be required to offer posttest phone access because the additional test right only arises after submission to the state test | Commissioner: officer need only allow phone use if requested; no affirmative duty to offer posttest phone access | Court: No duty to offer; officer satisfied statutory obligation where driver had pretest phone access and made no posttest request |
| Whether warrantless urine collection violated Fourth Amendment because consent was involuntary | Poeschel: consent involuntary due to custodial circumstances and statements that she would only give urine because required | Commissioner: consent was voluntary; officer followed implied-consent advisory and Poeschel consulted counsel before testing | Court: consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; warrant exception (consent) applies |
| Whether the implied-consent summary advisory or failure to obtain a knowing waiver violated due process | Poeschel: advisory misstated consequences and no knowing waiver of statutory rights; therefore due process violated | Commissioner: advisory was accurate enough, right to counsel vindicated, and Poeschel does not meaningfully challenge waiver | Court: summary advisory did not violate due process; waiver claim waived for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013) (analyzing voluntariness of consent to chemical tests under totality of circumstances)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent as an exception to the warrant requirement; voluntariness standard)
- Theel v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 447 N.W.2d 472 (Minn. App. 1989) (officer hindered attempt to obtain additional test by denying phone access)
- Haveri v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 552 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. App. 1996) (distinguishing failing-to-assist from hampering an additional-test attempt)
- Frost v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 348 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. App. 1984) (officer’s obligation is to allow use of a phone)
- Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 760 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. App. 2009) (standard of review and limits on officer obligations regarding additional tests)
- Moe v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 574 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. App. 1998) (summary implied-consent advisory does not violate due process where accurate and right to counsel vindicated)