State v. Hunn, 911 N.W.2d 816

Scott Hunn was stopped for rolling a stop sign; deputy suspected impairment by drugs after field sobriety tests and a breath test below the alcohol limit; Hunn was arrested for DWI.
At the county jail, without reading the implied-consent advisory, the deputy asked Hunn if he would submit to a urine test; Hunn consented and the urine tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
No warrant was obtained for the urine test. Hunn was charged with DWI (presence of a Schedule I/II controlled substance), driving without proof of insurance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Hunn moved to suppress the urine results, arguing the deputy failed to inform him of his rights (including the right to counsel) under the implied-consent advisory; the district court granted suppression relying on Friedman.
The court of appeals reversed, holding Friedman’s limited right to counsel applies only when the implied-consent advisory is read; the case was remanded to determine voluntariness of consent.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review on whether the court of appeals had effectively overruled Friedman and affirmed the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Friedman’s limited right to counsel applies when a driver is asked to consent to chemical testing but the implied-consent advisory is not read	Hunn: Friedman always applies; arrestees must be told of right to consult counsel and given reasonable time before deciding on chemical tests	State: Friedman’s limited right applies only in implied-consent cases when the advisory is read	Court: Friedman’s limited right to counsel is triggered only when the implied-consent advisory is read; suppression on that ground was error

Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991) (recognized a limited right to counsel before deciding to submit to implied-consent chemical testing)
Melde v. State, 725 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 2006) (describes Friedman as applying to implied-consent situations where advisory is read)
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (limits Friedman’s application to cases challenging the implied-consent advisory)
Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 368 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1985) (allows use of chemically obtained evidence in prosecution where implied-consent advisory was not read)
Prideaux v. State Dep’t of Public Safety, 247 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1976) (discusses tradeoffs drivers face between criminal exposure and administrative license revocation)