State v. Mike, 919 N.W.2d 103

On Oct. 7, 2017 Deputy Nichols obtained and executed a search warrant to draw Charles Lee Mike’s blood after a motorcycle crash; testing showed a .23 alcohol concentration.
Nichols did not read an implied-consent advisory, did not tell Mike that refusal to submit to a warranted blood test is a crime (per Minn. Stat. §171.177, subd.1), and did not offer an opportunity to consult an attorney.
Mike moved to suppress the blood-test results on three grounds: violation of a limited constitutional right to counsel (Friedman), statutory advisory noncompliance (§171.177), and due-process violation; the district court suppressed the results and dismissed the charges.
The State appealed the suppression and dismissal; the appellate court reviews de novo and proceeds because dismissal satisfied the State’s critical-impact threshold.
The appellate court concluded: (1) Friedman’s limited right to counsel was not triggered because no implied-consent advisory was read (per Hunn); (2) statutory advisory noncompliance did not warrant suppression because the advisory’s purpose is to induce submission, not to invalidate results when the subject nonetheless submitted; and (3) McDonnell-based due-process relief was inapplicable because there was no prejudicial reliance on an inaccurate advisory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police must provide opportunity to consult counsel before compelled blood test	Mike: Friedman creates a limited right to consult before testing; Nichols’ failure violated this right	State: Friedman applies only when the implied-consent advisory is read; no advisory was read here	Held: No right to counsel was triggered because the implied-consent advisory was not read (Hunn controls)
Whether failure to inform that refusal to submit to a warranted blood test is a crime (§171.177) requires suppression	Mike: §171.177 was not followed; failure invalidates use of test results	State: §171.177’s advisory relates to revocation/admin context and need not apply in criminal warrant executions; even if applicable, suppression is unnecessary	Held: §171.177 applies to warrant-directed tests, but failing to give the advisory does not justify suppression because the advisory’s purpose is to induce testing and that purpose was not subverted by submission
Whether due process required suppression under McDonnell	Mike: Lack of advisory is comparable to McDonnell’s inaccurate advisory and prejudicially affected his choice	State: McDonnell requires prejudicial reliance on an inaccurate advisory; none here	Held: McDonnell relief is unavailable — Mike did not prejudicially rely on an inaccurate advisory; due-process suppression unwarranted

Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991) (recognized limited right to consult counsel when implied-consent advisory is read)
State v. Hunn, 911 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2018) (Friedman right to counsel triggers only when the implied-consent advisory is read)
Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 368 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1985) (advisory aimed to inform of serious consequences of refusal; failure to give advisory should not invalidate test-based revocation)
State v. Cook, 498 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1993) (substantial procedural violations in warrant process can justify suppression when they defeat the rule’s purpose)
State v. Jackson, 742 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. 2007) (statutory violations justify suppression when they subvert statutory purpose)
State v. Smith, 367 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 1985) (not all statutory violations warrant suppression; only those subverting statutory purpose)
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (due-process relief where advisory was inaccurate and caused prejudicial reliance)
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 911 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. 2018) (clarified McDonnell requires prejudicial reliance on an inaccurate advisory)