On September 11, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments for State v. Brooks. Essentially, the question before the court was how Minnesota will apply the holding of the United States Supreme Court Case Missouri v. McNeely (a DWI case where the Court ruled testing a person’s blood without his consent violates the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Brooks’ attorney argued that Minnesota must apply the warrant requirement to ALL testing procedures, including breath, urine, and blood tests. In other words, in order for Minnesota to follow the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, officers who suspect a motorist of driving under the influence must obtain a warrant from a judge before testing his blood, breath, or urine for alcohol. If the officer does not secure a warrant before testing a motorist’s blood, breath, or urine, then the evidence of the test must be suppressed.
The Minnesota Judicial Branch recorded oral arguments and posted it here for the public to view.
Stay tuned for a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as it will likely change the course of Minnesota DWI law.