A Minnesota attorney took an implied consent case to the U.S. Supreme Court
and oral arguments were heard yesterday. This is one of a few cases the
Supreme Court has accepted that question the constitutionality of implied
consent laws – laws which punish drivers suspected of DWI for refusing
to take a chemical test. These laws, which exist in 13 states, have been
the subject of hot debate for years, with many arguing that it is unconstitutional
to force someone to take the tests without a warrant.
It is estimated that more than 20,000 breath tests are administered each
year in Minnesota.
This debate has huge implications when it comes to how drivers are handled
and penalized for refusing to give their consent. The Supreme Court’s
interest in these cases appears to be a sign that the justices want to
once and for all clear up the Fourth Amendment argument against unreasonable searches.
Advocates argue that the ability to punish drivers who refuse to take the
test is a critical part of keeping drunk drivers off the road, and that
it would be unrealistic and far too burdensome to require a warrant every
time law enforcement wanted to administer a test. Others argue that constitutional
protections cannot be waived just because someone is driving a car, and
that the implied consent law is at fundamental odds with protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.
Attorneys on both sides of the argument are hopeful that the judges will
rule in their favor. The judges could potentially make a distinction between
breath tests and more invasive blood or urine tests when it comes to the
warrant requirement. The high court is expected to rule on the matter
some time in the next two months.
For more information, visit
Star Tribune online.
Facing DWI charges in Minneapolis? Request a free consultation with a Minneapolis
DWI lawyer at Caplan & Tamburino Law Firm, P.A. when you call (612)
444-5020. We are available 24/7 to take your call.