State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr., 859 N.W.2d 762

Background

On Aug. 5, 2012 police responded to reports of intoxicated men at a boat launch; witnesses identified William Robert Bernard as the driver of a stuck truck and described intoxicated behavior. Officers smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot eyes, and Bernard held the truck keys; he refused field sobriety tests.
Bernard was arrested for DWI, read the Minnesota implied-consent advisory, given an opportunity to contact counsel, called his mother, and then refused a breath test.
State charged Bernard with two counts of first‑degree test refusal under Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, 169A.24. Bernard moved to dismiss arguing the statute criminalized his refusal to submit to an unconstitutional, warrantless search (breath test), violating substantive due process.
The district court dismissed the charges as applied, finding the warrantless breath test unconstitutional; the court of appeals reversed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court majority held a warrantless breath test would have been constitutional as a search incident to a valid arrest, so criminalizing Bernard’s refusal did not implicate a fundamental right and survives rational‑basis review. Justices Page and Stras dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (test‑refusal statute) is unconstitutional as applied because it criminalizes refusal of an unconstitutional, warrantless breath search	Bernard: conviction would punish exercise of Fourth Amendment right to refuse an unlawful search; McNeely and Gant foreclose treating breath tests as searches incident to arrest	State: breath test is a search of the arrestee’s person and permissible as a search incident to a valid arrest; prosecution for refusal does not implicate a fundamental right and survives rational‑basis review	Court: breath test constitutional as search incident to arrest; statute does not implicate a fundamental right; statute is a reasonable means to public‑safety ends and is upheld
Whether probable cause alone justifies a warrantless breath test or a warrant/exception is required	Bernard: probable cause is insufficient when a search intrudes on bodily integrity; exigency analysis in McNeely requires case‑by‑case consideration	State: probable cause plus lawful arrest permits a search of the person incident to arrest; Robinson’s categorical rule applies to searches of the arrestee’s body	Court: probable cause alone is not a freepass, but a breath test is a search incident to a valid arrest under Robinson; no separate probable‑cause exception needed
Whether McNeely or Gant limit search‑incident‑to‑arrest to bar breath tests incident to arrest	Bernard: McNeely (exigency) and Gant (limits on vehicle searches) show modern doctrine narrowed incident‑to‑arrest and require concern for officer safety or evidence preservation	State: McNeely addressed exigent‑circumstances only; Gant concerned vehicle searches and does not narrow body searches; Robinson remains controlling for searches of the person	Court: McNeely and Gant do not preclude applying search‑incident‑to‑arrest to breath tests; Robinson’s categorical rule remains valid for searches of the person
Whether criminalizing refusal to submit to a breath test violates substantive due process	Bernard: conviction punishes assertion of constitutional right when the underlying search is unlawful (Camara); statute arbitrary as applied here	State: no fundamental right to refuse a constitutional search; test‑refusal statute rationally furthers highway safety and prosecution of impaired drivers	Court: no fundamental right implicated; statute passes rational‑basis review as reasonably related to public‑safety objective; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (probable‑cause alone does not eliminate Fourth Amendment protections)
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (reiterating limits on warrantless searches despite probable cause)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (rationales for search incident to arrest: officer safety and preservation of evidence)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (categorical rule: full search of person incident to lawful custodial arrest is reasonable)
Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1995) (reasonableness is touchstone of Fourth Amendment)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create per se exigency; warrants ordinarily required absent case‑specific exigency)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (limited extension of Robinson; held cell‑phone data not searchable incident to arrest without warrant)
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967) (government may not criminalize refusal to consent to an illegal, warrantless administrative search)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (breath/blood testing raises bodily‑integrity and privacy concerns; upheld in special‑needs/safety context)