State v. Minett, 332 P.3d 235

On March 27, 2011, Peter Minett collided with another vehicle in Butte, MT; officers smelled alcohol and observed erratic behavior.
Minett refused field sobriety tests and refused to provide a breath sample; officers suspected impairment and consulted the County Attorney.
A search warrant was obtained authorizing a hospital blood draw for alcohol/drug testing; the blood was drawn and Minett was later arrested and charged with felony DUI and criminal endangerment.
Minett moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing § 61-8-402(4), MCA (2009) barred any testing after a refusal, including testing pursuant to a warrant.
The District Court denied suppression; a jury convicted Minett on both counts and he appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Minett's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the implied-consent statute (§ 61-8-402(4), MCA (2009)) bars obtaining a blood sample by search warrant after a driver refuses officer-designated tests	§ 61-8-402(4) says refused tests "may not be given," so that prohibition is categorical and precludes a warrant-based blood draw	The statutory prohibition prevents forced warrantless testing only; nothing in the 2009 statute forbids seeking a search warrant, and warrants are a constitutionally acceptable means to obtain evidence	The Court held the 2009 implied-consent provision did not prohibit obtaining a search warrant; suppression was properly denied
Whether seeking a warrant was consistent with Montana privacy and search-warrant law and thus a lawful alternative to implied consent	(implicit) A warrant drawn from a refusal would circumvent the statutory protection the Legislature provided to refusers	Officers may either rely on implied-consent testing (when lawful) or seek a warrant; Montana law favors and encourages warrants to protect privacy	The Court emphasized Montana's strong preference for warrants and confirmed obtaining a warrant was consistent with constitutional and state law principles

State v. Marcial, 308 P.3d 69 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Michaud, 180 P.3d 636 (Mont. 2008) (implied consent premise that driving is a privilege)
Nichols v. Department of Justice, 248 P.3d 813 (Mont. 2011) (implied consent statute is not an exception to warrant requirement)
State v. Beanblossom, 61 P.3d 165 (Mont. 2002) (implied-consent tests are not the exclusive means to prove intoxication)
State v. Stueck, 929 P.2d 829 (Mont. 1996) (statute prohibits forced warrantless blood draws after refusal)
State v. Giacomini, 327 P.3d 1054 (Mont. 2014) (discussed prior interpretation that pre-2011 statute did not permit warrants after refusal)