State v. Wiseman
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 69
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Officer observed vehicle violations and suspect Wiseman showed signs of intoxication; Wiseman refused chemical testing after implied-consent advisory; Wiseman charged with first-degree DWI and first-degree DWI for refusal; district court denied dismissal of refusal charge; case proceeded on stipulated facts with waiver of jury trial; appellate issue is whether the refusal statute violates substantive due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 169A.20, subd. 2 violate substantive due process by criminalizing passive/refusal to a warrantless search? | Wiseman argues the statute infringes due process by punishing noncooperation. | Wiseman contends the right to passive refusal is a fundamental liberty | No fundamental right; statute is reasonable to advance state interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Melde, 725 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 2006) (de novo review of constitutionality; statutory presumption of validity)
- In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 1999) (substantive due process framework for evaluating laws)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (fundamental rights must be deeply rooted in history and tradition)
- State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (exigent circumstances support warrantless testing when probable cause exists)
- Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202 (Minn. 2009) (exigency exception to warrant requirement for chemical testing)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 177 (U.S. 2004) (passive/noncooperation can be criminalized for purposes of obtaining identity)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983) (refusal to submit to chemical test can be used as evidence of guilt)
- Krawsky, 426 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. 1988) (obstruction statutes may punish interference with police duties)
- Behl, 564 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1997) (state may define acts constituting criminal conduct to achieve legitimate objectives)