870 N.W.2d 396
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- Todd Trahan was arrested for suspected DWI after erratic driving; at jail he was read the implied-consent advisory and chose urine testing, which officers deemed invalid, then refused a requested blood test.
- The State charged Trahan with first-degree test refusal under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2; Trahan pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 60 months.
- Trahan pursued direct and postconviction appeals arguing (among other things) the plea lacked factual basis and the test-refusal statute is unconstitutional as applied.
- Minnesota Supreme Court reversed portions of earlier appellate rulings and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Bernard; on remand Trahan pressed a substantive due-process challenge premised on McNeely (warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood draws).
- The panel concluded a warrantless blood draw here would not have been justified under search-incident-to-arrest or exigent-circumstances (McNeely), so criminalizing refusal to an unconstitutional blood search implicates the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches.
- Because the statute (as applied to refusal of a warrantless blood test) was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, it failed strict scrutiny; conviction reversed and plea withdrawal ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw here would be constitutional under Fourth Amendment exceptions | Trahan: blood draw would have been an unconstitutional, highly intrusive search absent a warrant | State: exigent circumstances (dissipation/time constraints) or search-incident-to-arrest could justify warrantless draw | Warrantless blood draw not justified under search-incident-to-arrest or exigent-circumstances (McNeely controls) |
| Whether criminalizing refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test violates substantive due process | Trahan: statute criminalizes refusal to submit to an unconstitutional search, implicating fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches; strict scrutiny applies | State: statute furthers compelling highway safety interest; alternatives exist (breath test, prosecution without chemical evidence, or warrants) | Because a warrantless blood test would be unconstitutional, refusal implicates fundamental right; statute as applied is not narrowly tailored and fails strict scrutiny |
| Whether good-faith / exclusionary-rule doctrines save the conviction | Trahan: N/A (argues unconstitutionality) | State: Lindquist good-faith exception to exclusionary rule should allow conviction | Court declined to apply good-faith exception; remedy for constitutional violation is reversal here |
| Remedy and retrial potential | Trahan: seeks vacation of plea/conviction | State: urged affirmation | Conviction reversed and remanded for withdrawal of guilty plea; retrial not barred by double jeopardy or statute cited |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create exigency per se; exigency is case-by-case)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draws are highly intrusive; limited applicability of search-incident-to-arrest for intrusions beyond body surface)
- State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015) (warrantless breath test upheld; discussion distinguishing breath from blood and implications for test-refusal challenges)
- State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015) (exigent circumstances justified warrantless blood draw given emergency and risk that suspect would be unavailable)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (collection of blood and other bodily samples constitutes a search)
- Robinson v. United States, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (search-incident-to-arrest doctrine permits full search of arrested person)
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1957) (chemical tests provide scientifically accurate measures for intoxication and serve both prosecutors and defendants)
- State v. Lindquist, 869 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2015) (Minnesota adopted a narrow good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)