This morning, the Minnesota Supreme Court has issued its long-anticipated decision in the case of State v. Bernard . Defense attorneys (and a myriad of entities interested in preserving the Constitution) have been waiting with high hopes for a final determination as to whether the State of Minnesota can charge a driver with a crime for refusing a warrantless search. Our hopes have been dashed by the Supreme Court’s ill-reasoned and overly expansive interpretation of a 1973 United States Supreme Court decision addressing searches incident to arrest, United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218 (1973). As a result, the Minnesota Supreme Court held, in a split decision, that Minnesota refusal law is constitutional because tests to ascertain the alcohol concentration of a driver suspected of DWI are valid searches incident to arrest.
The dissent captures the fundamental flaw in the majority opinion:
Although this should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the State’s increasingly Draconian interpretation of laws related to drunk drivers, it seems abhorrent that simply because a person is suspected of driving while intoxicated, they are not subject to the same constitutional protections warranted in any other type of crime.
The attorneys here at Tamburino Law Group will continue to avidly fight for our client’s rights, regardless of the type of case.
.2407131209550.png "2024 Best Places To Work")
