State v. Helm
2017 ND 207
| N.D. | 2017Background
- At 1:30 a.m., officer stopped Steven Helm for driving without headlights; officer suspected impairment by drugs and arrested Helm for DUI.
- Helm refused a warrantless urine test requested incident to arrest; State charged him under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01 for refusing a chemical test.
- District court granted Helm’s motion to dismiss, finding a warrantless urine test incident to arrest is not permitted under the search-incident-to-arrest exception as informed by Birchfield v. North Dakota.
- The State urged a categorical rule permitting warrantless urine tests for drug-impaired driving when the test can be administered without visual exposure of genitals and no less-intrusive test exists.
- The record included the State Toxicologist’s urine submission checklist and the arresting officer’s affidavit describing observed collection procedures (officer stands ≈45° behind detainee in a closed restroom; no genital exposure but direct observation to prevent tampering).
- The court applied Birchfield’s privacy/need balancing and followed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s reasoning in State v. Thompson, concluding warrantless urine tests administered under the State’s procedures are like blood tests and are not reasonable incident to arrest; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless urine test incident to arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for suspected drug-impaired driving | Warrantless urine tests that do not require genital exposure are minimally intrusive and permissible as a search incident to arrest; no less-intrusive alternative exists for drug detection | A warrantless urine test is sufficiently intrusive (privacy, potential for revealing unrelated information, embarrassment) that it cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest; refusal therefore not criminally punishable | A warrantless urine test under the State’s form/protocol is not a reasonable search incident to arrest; prosecution for refusal is barred |
| Whether Birchfield’s breath/blood distinction extends to urine | State: urine is less intrusive and more analogous to breath when administered without genital exposure | Helm: urine presents privacy and informational concerns like blood and is more intrusive than breath | Court: urine (as administered here) is more like blood than breath for Fourth Amendment purposes |
| Whether a categorical rule allowing warrantless urine testing (without genital exposure) should be judicially created | State: adopt categorical rule for drug-based DUIs where test can be done without genital exposure | Helm: categorical rule would ignore privacy risks and sample preservation/abuse concerns; must require a warrant absent exigency | Court: declines to adopt State’s proposed categorical rule; requires warrant absent exception |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing the refusal charge | State: dismissal was error because test would have been non-intrusive and lawful | Helm: dismissal correct because test was unconstitutional absent warrant | Court: affirms dismissal; prosecution for refusal cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (distinguishes breath and blood tests; permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrest but forbids warrantless blood tests)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (urine testing is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1989) (privacy interests in bodily samples and limits on government testing programs)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (searches and seizures measure reasonableness under Fourth Amendment; warrant requirement baseline)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (balancing privacy intrusion against government interest in search analyses)
- State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016) (urine tests under observed-collection protocols are like blood tests for privacy and informational concerns; warrant generally required)