All 50 states have implied consent laws, which state that by having a license drivers agree to alcohol testing in the event of being suspected of DWI. The exact requirements of the laws vary from state to state. In some, implied consent refers only to field sobriety tests, while in others it includes blood, breath, or urine testing. In 11 states, refusing to comply can lead to criminal charges.
In the 2013 case of Missouri v. McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that states must obtain a warrant before administering a blood test for alcohol, regardless of their implied consent laws. The court ruled that a blood test fell under the Fourth Amendment’s definition of a “search.” The decision also noted that the fact that alcohol is metabolized by the body—thereby giving law enforcement a short window to test a suspect—does not in itself equate to exigent circumstances.
Now, the Minnesota Supreme Court is reviewing that state’s implied consent law. In part, the court is being asked to consider whether individuals can be subject to criminal charges and imprisonment for withholding consent to DWI testing—or in other words, for refusing a search. The defense is arguing that the right to refuse a search is protected under the Constitution and the state cannot make it a crime to invoke a Constitutional right. Instead, the defense claims the state can impose civil penalties for refusing a test, such as revoking the suspect’s driver’s license.
Many law enforcement officials and anti-drunk-driving organizations view implied consent laws as a key tool to prosecuting impaired drivers and keeping the roads safer. But opponents argue that those efforts can’t, and don’t have to, infringe on a suspect’s rights. The Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in a few months.
