State v. Brooks
2013 Minn. LEXIS 426
| Minn. | 2013Background
- Brooks challenged blood and urine searches in three DUI incidents (July 31, 2009; January 16, 2010; January 25, 2010) conducted without warrants.
- Police read implied-consent advisories; Brooks consulted counsel and voluntarily agreed to testing after discussing with attorney.
- Scott County cases involved urine tests; Hennepin County involved a blood test; the January 25, 2010 incident also included a urine test.
- Lower courts denied suppression; Scott County cases based on evanescent alcohol and exigency; Hennepin case on implied-consent consent.
- Supreme Court remanded after McNeely; the State urged multiple grounds to justify warrantless searches, including consent and exigent circumstances.
- This opinion affirmatively holds that Brooks voluntarily consented to the searches; and the implied-consent statute is constitutional; two other arguments are not necessary to reach the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks voluntarily consented to the searches | Brooks (State) argues consent was valid under implied consent. | Brooks contends consent was coerced by crime-for-refusal threat. | Yes; consent voluntary under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether Minnesota’s implied-consent statute is unconstitutional | Brooks contends implied-consent power violates Fourth Amendment rights. | State argues statute aligns with McNeely and permits testing with consent. | Statute constitutional; consent found under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether good-faith/exclusionary rule considerations apply given McNeely remand | Brooks urges exclusion due to McNeely and Netland conflict. | State relies on Davis good-faith exception and rely-on-binding-precedent rationale. | Not needed to decide; discussion in concurrence supports good-faith exception (Davis) but main holding stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (blood/urine testing as search under Fourth Amendment)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent must be voluntary and not the product of duress)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (case-by-case exigency; dissipation of alcohol not automatic exigency)
- Prideaux v. State Department of Public Safety, 310 Minn. 405 (Minn. 1976) (implied-consent coercion concerns; driver choice with counsel)
- State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202 (Minn. 2009) (single-factor exigency for blood-alcohol evidence abrogated by McNeely)
- Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (evanescent alcohol; exigency doctrine in Minnesota)
- McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (consent and considerations around implied consent)
- Hennig, 666 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 2003) (Henning; prior precedent on implied consent)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (consent must be voluntary; submit to authority not coerced)
- Neville v. South Dakota, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983) (coercion analysis in implied-consent context (Fifth Amendment))
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule; binding precedent under certain circumstances)