Challenging How DWI Evidence Was Collected in Minnesota

Attorney Answer

Whether the evidence was collected properly turns on facts your message does not contain — and two of the three leading recent Minnesota decisions in this area cut against suppression, not for it. Which test was taken, and whether police had a warrant, decides nearly everything.

Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 defines the DWI offences, including driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time or as measured within two hours, and driving under the influence of cannabis or other listed substances. Subdivision 2 defines the separate crime of test refusal, and note how it is drawn: refusing a breath test is a crime, while refusing a blood or urine test is a crime only where officers obtained a search warrant.

That structure exists because of State v. Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016), in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment bars convicting a driver of refusing a warrantless blood test absent a warrant or exigent circumstances; the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not authorise a warrantless blood draw. That is the decision most likely to help you, and it matters chiefly if officers sought a blood test without a warrant.

Where a warrant existed, the recent law runs the other way, and you should know that before spending money chasing a motion. In State v. Rosenbush, 931 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 2019), the court held that the limited right to counsel does not apply when a driver is presented with the choice whether to submit to a blood test taken pursuant to a search warrant, and that the district court had erred in suppressing the results on that ground. In State v. Wood, 922 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), officers did not read the implied-consent advisory but obtained a warrant and executed it over the driver's objection; the court held the implied-consent right of refusal did not apply and affirmed the denial of suppression.

What you can do

1. Write down now which test you were given — breath, blood or urine — and whether anyone mentioned or showed you a warrant. 2. Have your lawyer obtain full discovery: squad and body camera video, the officer's report, the test record, and the warrant application and warrant if one issued. 3. Ask specifically whether the implied-consent advisory was read to you, and get the recording of it. 4. Raise any suppression issue at the omnibus stage of your criminal case. Ask the court for the exact motion deadline in your case and calendar it. 5. Handle the licence revocation separately. It is its own proceeding with its own filing window, stated on the notice you were given.

⏱ Time limits apply. Your criminal case and the revocation of your driving privileges run on two separate tracks, with different standards and different clocks, and they can reach opposite results on the same stop. The notice you received about your licence sets a short window — measured in days from the date of that notice — to challenge the revocation in court, and it routinely expires while people are still waiting for criminal court dates. Separately, suppression issues in the criminal case must be raised at the omnibus stage. Both depend on your specific dates, so check your paperwork now.