COVID-19 UPDATE: We are open! Our team is working and offering consultations via phone, e-mail, and video conferencing.
Start With Your Free Consultation 612.444.5020

State v. Bernard: An Oral Argument Review

Jeff Sheridan represented the Appellant (Defendant) in this oral argument. He argued first.

Mr. Sheridan requested that the Court find that the criminal test refusal statute be held unconstitutional. First, Mr. Sheridan addressed whether his argument should be treated as an as-applied or facial challenge. Certain judges felt that the statute could be constitutional in certain situations as thus believed that it should be treated as an as-applied challenge. For example, if the cops did have a valid warrant and the defendant refused testing, then the statute could be held valid. This question was left unanswered.

Mr. Sheridan next addressed the possibility that exceptions to the warrant requirement would exist in certain situations. Mr. Sheridan addressed this by saying that while it is a possibility that exceptions could exist in a case-by-case basis, the determination as to whether an officer can administer a test should be made by a judge to avoid erroneous reliance on warrant exceptions which may or may not exist.

Mr. Sheridan boiled his argument down to two questions. First, does a person have a constitutional right to withhold consent to a warrantless search. Second, assuming the answer is yes to the first question, can the State make it a crime to exercise this constitutional right. Mr. Sheridan stated that the answer is yes to each question and thus the implied consent statute must be held to be unconstitutional.

There was much discussion over whether or not the search incident to arrest exception would apply in every case to justify the warrantless searches performed under the implied consent law. Mr. Sheridan stated that the search incident to arrest would not apply because in order to perform a valid search incident to arrest one of two things needs to occur. Specifically, the officers need to perform the search for officer safety or in order to prevent the destruction of evidence. Mr. Sheridan stated that while blood alcohol content does dissipate over time, the person does not have the physical control to destroy it. Further, this dissipation of alcohol is very similar to the one factor exigency which was struck down in McNeely.Ultimately, the judges asked many questions which forced Mr. Sheridan to defend why this exception should not be applied. It seems that if the court upholds the implied consent law, the search incident to arrest exception will play a role in that decision.

Stay tuned for more Bernard analysis!


What Our Clients Are Saying

  • “ Today I had a court appearance where your attorney, LIS CARLSON represented me. I must start at the beginning, MS. CARLSON returned my phone call to her with in an hour of my first call to your office. I was overwhelmed with gratitude for the quick response to my call & most important how LIS immediately made me feel, she was professional, caring, her ability to immediately know that I was a total mess. Before she finished with my call she made sure that I was alright, her compassion for me was extremely needed. I immediately felt there couldn’t be a better attorney in the state better than LIS! Throughout this entire process, Lis was a pillar of strength. I was amazed at how she handled everything with extreme care & some very excellent, professional legal skills. I count my blessings but I count them twice when I came to LIS. The world needs more people like LIS, smart, intelligent, kind and caring.” - P.G.
  • “How do I ever thank you enough for your amazingly great strategy that got my case dismissed! ” - J. E.
  • “ Kayla Wengronowitz was my attorney in a claim against me involving Title IX and won my difficult and extensive case. She was a beacon of hope to me when my options seemed very limited. Kayla provided clarity for me to understand everything happening in the case, she made smart and calculated decisions, she made sure I was comfortable with every decision she made, and she responded to difficult situations seemingly with ease. Most importantly, Kayla was empathetic and provided comfort throughout the strenuous process. I am extremely grateful for her service and highly recommend her without reservation.” - Anonymous
  • “I strongly recommended to anybody who needs a criminal lawyer representation ” - M.M.
  • “ I just wanted to thank you so much! I am so pleased with all the hard work you put in. I would have never had the chance to get the outcome I did without you. You did an amazing job and we are feeling very greatful to have made the right call when we chose you.” - P.K.
View More Testimonials

Don't Wait To Request Your Free Consultation

We take calls at any time of the day or night, so please don’t wait to find out how we can assist you. During your first meeting, we'll evaluate your case and determine if we are the right fit for you.

  • Please enter your name.
  • This isn't a valid email address.
    Please enter your email.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
    Please enter your phone number.
    You entered an invalid number.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.