It’s a fair bet that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide a key constitutional question from Wisconsin at some point: What part of “you need a warrant” don’t you get, Wisconsin?
Read more →
When Tyler Johnson was told by a police officer in North Branch in November 2015 that he could be charged with a more serious felony if he did not agree to urine or blood testing because of a suspicion that he was driving under the influence, he was getting bad information. Read more →
A Minnesota man who may have tested the state’s implied consent laws more often than any other driver charged with driving under the influence, has lost again at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Under the law, authorities can force a person to submit to breath tests without a warrant by criminalizing their refusal to do so. But previous provisions for demanding blood or urine have been struck down. Read more →
For all of the fascinating opinions from the Minnesota Supreme Court in recent years on the question of whether warrants are needed to test drivers for DUI, the Wisconsin Supreme Court one-upped them all with a ruling today on whether a warrant is needed to draw blood from someone who is unconscious. Read more →
The Minnesota Court of Appeals today said if someone says he hopes a Minnesota state trooper will be shot, that’s not a terroristic threat.
The court ruled in the case of Gregory Allen Olson, who was in a car stopped by police in October as he and a friend were driving to Chisago City after an evening of heavy drinking. Read more →
The Minnesota Court of Appeals today ruled that you cannot lose your driver’s license for refusing to submit to a urine test for DUI if a police officer says it’s a crime not to.
Read more →
The Minnesota Supreme Court today essentially enacted what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year, telling authorities if they want to get drunk drivers off the road by testing their urine or blood, they need to get a warrant. Read more →
The U.S. Supreme Court today has struck down part of Minnesota law that forces people suspected of driving under the influence to submit to blood tests without a warrant.
At the same time, however, the high court affirmed a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that authorities can force a person to submit to breath tests without a warrant. Read more →
If you drive around with a penny in your mouth, you’re probably too drunk to drive. And you’re probably not a science major. Read more →
A Minnesota police officer blocks your car in parking lot, shines his spotlight on you and asks you to take a breathalyzer test. You refuse and lose your license. Legal? The judges said yes. Read more →
A divided court ruled a blood draw is more invasive than a breath test and so requires a warrant. The decision reins in Minnesota’s law criminalizing suspected DUI drivers who refuse alcohol testing. Read more →
Minnesota’s implied consent law, which allows the state to revoke your driver’s license if you refuse to submit to chemical testing for DUI, has survived yet another constitutional challenge. Read more →
In a case that seemed to pit laws to protect domestic abuse victims against those designed to protect other drivers from drunks on the road, the Minnesota Supreme Court has sided with the latter.
Read more →
In Minnesota it’s a crime to refuse to submit to chemical testing when a police officer thinks you’re driving under the influence. Read more →