Back in April 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. McNeely that the practice of requiring those suspected of driving drunk to submit to a blood test without a warrant was unconstitutional. There has been a lot of debate over the ruling and Implied Consent here in Minnesota, but the Supreme Court’s decision left one big question: What about those people who submitted to a test without a warrant prior to the ruling?
That was issue facing Shawn O’Connell, who submitted to a blood test after his arrest in Bloomington once he was informed of Minnesota’s Implied Consent law, which penalizes drivers who refuse to submit to a test, even in the absence of a warrant. After the McNeely decision was handed down, O’Connell rightfully challenged that he be allowed to withdraw his plea based on the fact that the state’s case hung on the fact that he submitted to a test without a warrant.
Unfortunately for O’Connell, Judge Louise Dovre Bjorkman did not want to be a champion of individual rights. In her ruling last week, Bjorkman stated:
“Prior to McNeely, many jurisdictions, including Minnesota, recognized that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood constituted a per se exigency justifying a warrantless search. McNeely changed the law in these jurisdictions. Law enforcement can no longer rely on natural dissipation alone to create an exigent circumstance. Rather, law enforcement is now obligated to obtain a warrant or establish a valid exception to the warrant requirement based on the totality of the circumstances. And the split in authority prior to McNeely demonstrates its holding was not dictated by existing precedent. We conclude that McNeely announced a new rule that would generally not apply to final convictions on collateral review.”
In a statement that clearly throws due process out the window, Bjorkman concluded:
“The requirement that law enforcement secure a warrant, or establish an exception to the warrant requirement, before administering a breath, blood, or urine test has little bearing on the accuracy of the underlying determination of guilt. Rather, it merely addresses the procedural requirements law enforcement must follow when gathering evidence against a suspect.”
In essence, so long as the ends justify the means, then violating a person’s 4th Amendment rights is fine. This is a dangerous precedent, and we as citizens should be concerned.
Related source: MPR News