873 N.W.2d 873
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- On April 13, 2012, police stopped Ryan Thompson after observing drivingErratic conduct and smelled alcohol; he failed field sobriety and a preliminary breath test and was arrested.
- At the detention center Thompson was read the implied-consent advisory, attempted a phone call to an attorney, then refused blood and urine tests.
- Thompson was charged with second-degree test refusal (refusing blood or urine), among other counts; he preserved a challenge to the test-refusal charge and was convicted after an as-applied challenge failed in district court.
- On appeal Thompson argued the refusal statute (Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2) is unconstitutional as applied because a warrantless blood or urine test would have been unlawful and criminalizing refusal therefore violates substantive due process.
- The court analyzed Fourth Amendment warrant exceptions (search-incident-to-arrest) and substantive due process (strict scrutiny) and ultimately reversed Thompson’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless urine or blood test would be justified by the search-incident-to-arrest exception | Thompson: a warrantless blood or urine test would be unconstitutional; thus refusal implicates protection from unreasonable searches | State: search-incident-to-arrest applies (analogizing to breath tests and other searches incident to arrest) | Warrantless urine (and blood) tests are not justified by the search-incident-to-arrest exception; they are sufficiently intrusive to require a warrant |
| Whether criminalizing refusal to submit to a warrantless blood/urine test violates substantive due process | Thompson: statute as applied infringes fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and fails strict scrutiny | State: public safety interest in preventing drunk driving justifies statute; alternatives or reliance on precedent support enforcement | Court: the statute, as applied to warrantless blood/urine, implicates a fundamental right and fails strict scrutiny because less intrusive alternatives (breath test, warrant, prosecution without chemical result) exist |
| Whether the good-faith exception saves the conviction | Thompson: not applicable because no unconstitutional search occurred; reversal appropriate | State: officers relied on binding precedent, so good-faith exception should apply | Court: declined to apply the good-faith exception; it applies narrowly and only to Fourth Amendment exclusionary contexts where reliance on binding precedent is shown |
| Scope of decision (facial vs as-applied) | Thompson argued both but principally as-applied | State urged broader validity of statute | Court treats Thompson’s claim as an as-applied challenge and reverses conviction on due-process grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015) (upholding warrantless breath test under search-incident-to-arrest and framing less-intrusive analysis)
- State v. Trahan, 870 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. App. 2015) (holding warrantless blood draw not justified by search-incident-to-arrest and applying substantive-due-process review)
- State v. Lindquist, 869 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2015) (adopting narrow good-faith exception for reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (urine testing is a search and implicates significant privacy interests)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on search-incident-to-arrest doctrine and rationale regarding officer safety and evidence preservation)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (warrants often practicable for blood draws; exigency not automatic in drunk-driving cases)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (U.S. 2013) (upholding warrantless buccal swab for identification under different, less intrusive facts)