Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 75
Minn. Ct. App.2016Background
- Tyler Johnson crashed his vehicle; officer suspected drug impairment (not alcohol) and arrested him for DWI after finding a pill bottle.
- At the hospital the officer read the implied-consent advisory, told Johnson refusal to take a urine test is a crime, and Johnson declined both urine and blood tests after seeking counsel.
- The Commissioner revoked Johnson’s driver’s license under the implied-consent refusal penalty; Johnson sought rescission in district court.
- The district court rescinded the revocation, concluding the advisory misinformed Johnson by threatening a criminal urine-test-refusal charge the state could not lawfully impose, violating due process.
- On appeal, the Commissioner argued the claim should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and that the advisory was accurate when given; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper constitutional framework for challenge to advisory | Challenge should be evaluated under the Due Process Clause per Minnesota precedent (McDonnell) | Fourth Amendment governs because claim implicates search/seizure and substantive due process should yield to specific Amendment | Due-process analysis is appropriate; Minnesota precedent treats misleading advisories as procedural due-process issues rather than purely Fourth Amendment claims |
| Was advisory misleading by stating refusal to take a urine test is a crime where prosecution would be unconstitutional? | Advisory was inaccurate because, under Thompson (and Birchfield reasoning), prosecuting refusal of a warrantless urine test that violated the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional | Advisory complied with statutory language and was accurate when given; officer acted in good faith following statute | A criminal refusal charge here would be unconstitutional; advisory inaccurately threatened criminal penalties and thus violated due process |
| Availability of implied consent or other exceptions to justify warrantless urine test | State cannot rely on implied consent to impose criminal penalties for urine testing; search-incident and exigent exceptions did not apply on facts | State argues implied-consent framework or other exceptions (consent, exigency, search-incident) justify testing and prosecution | Warrantless urine test was not supported by search-incident, exigent-circumstances, or implied-consent for criminal-refusal purposes; consent exception not established |
| Remedy for misleading advisory and prior-good-faith / temporal defenses | Rescission of license revocation is required under McDonnell when advisory misleads about criminal liability | Commissioner: advisory was accurate when given; officer followed statutory duty; retroactivity and good-faith arguments limit relief | Under McDonnell (and Steinolfson), rescission of the license revocation is appropriate despite the officer acting pursuant to statute or prior to Thompson/Birchfield; good-faith and timing do not bar relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991) (implied-consent advisory that threatens unauthorized criminal charges violates due process; rescission remedy)
- Davis v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 517 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1994) (framing advisory challenges as procedural due-process issues; validity of advisory not foreclosed by Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Melde v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 725 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 2006) (procedural due-process standard for implied-consent advisory adequacy)
- Steinolfson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 478 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. App. 1991) (rescind revocation when advisory misinforms driver about criminal liability)
- Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1959) (due process prohibits prosecution when government officials mislead individuals about legal protections)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (exigent-circumstances test for warrantless blood draws; no categorical exigency)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (states cannot criminalize refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test; limits on implied-consent criminal penalties)
- State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015) (warrant requirement and exceptions analyzed in Minnesota search-and-seizure context)