State v. Wood, 922 N.W.2d 209

On March 11, 2016, Brett Wood was arrested for DWI after officers observed signs of impairment and found indicia he had lied about his identity.
Wood refused a voluntary blood draw and asked for counsel; officers did not read the implied-consent advisory and did not allow him to contact an attorney.
Officer Luethmers sought and obtained a search warrant authorizing a nonconsensual blood draw; officers executed the warrant over Wood’s objection and while he was restrained; the blood tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
Wood moved to suppress the blood-test result, arguing Minn. Stat. § 169A.52(1) (2014) barred testing after his refusal; the district court denied suppression and a jury convicted him of multiple charges.
On appeal, Wood argued the implied-consent statute forbids testing after a refusal even when police obtain a search warrant; the State argued the implied-consent provision did not apply because the advisory was not invoked and alternatively urged an exclusionary-rule exception.
The court concluded the implied-consent provision applies only when the implied-consent scheme is invoked (i.e., the advisory is read); because officers obtained and executed a valid search warrant, the blood-result was admissible under Minn. Stat. § 169A.45(2014).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minn. Stat. § 169A.52(1) (2014) bars taking blood after a refusal when police obtain a search warrant	Wood: §169A.52(1) states “If a person refuses … then a test must not be given,” so officers cannot lawfully take blood after refusal, even via warrant	State: The provision is part of the Implied Consent Law and applies only when the advisory is read; officers may obtain and execute a warrant and §169A.45 permits admission of tests obtained outside implied-consent	The statute does not apply unless the implied-consent scheme is invoked; a valid search warrant permitted the nonconsensual blood draw and the test result was admissible

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (nonconsensual blood draws permissible pursuant to valid search warrant)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (constitutional permissibility of nonconsensual blood draws with warrant or exigency)
State v. Hunn, 911 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2018) (limited right to counsel triggered when implied-consent advisory is read)
State v. Aguirre, 295 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 1980) (prior interpretation that implied-consent scheme limited admissibility to voluntary or statutory testing)
State v. Speak, 339 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. 1983) (same)
State v. Schauer, 501 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. App. 1993) (discussing effect of 1984 amendments eliminating mandatory implied-consent admissibility condition)