Minnesota Implied Consent Law Overview
As simply as the name implies, Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law determines whether or not you have given your consent to breath, blood, or urine testing by operating a vehicle in Minnesota. Beyond the person’s own consent, the law also implies that even individuals who do not offer consent will undergo testing in order to determine his or her intoxication level. Minnesota law considers anyone behind the wheel of a motor vehicle to be in consent of testing by virtue of operating the vehicle. The law can get a little convoluted, however, because implied consent does not constitute consent without probable cause for the officer to suspect that a driver is intoxicated. It is very important for arrested individuals who have been determined legally intoxicated and charged with DWI to understand their rights in this situation. If you have been charged with DWI in the state of Minnesota, contact an experienced Minnesota DWI lawyer right away to find out if any aspect of your arrest and/or testing is subject to challenge .
The law was created in order to allow police to use testing methods to determine the sobriety of drivers on the sidewalk. In Minnesota, the Implied Consent Law requires that a driver who has been charged with DWI must be tested within two hours of the time of his or her arrest in order for the results to be admissible in court. Drivers in the state of Minnesota are required by law to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test following a DWI arrest. If an individual refuses testing, however, he or she will be subject to the penalty of license suspension and other penalties in Minnesota. Refusal to comply by Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law is therefore subject to penalties that can be far worse than the penalties for positive testing. Drivers should be sure to consult with an attorney before deciding whether or not to participate in chemical testing, as there can be substantial consequences to minimize.
Impacts of Implied Consent on Minnesota Drivers
This law affects Minnesota drivers in two main ways. First, by accepting the privilege of a driver’s license or permit in Minnesota, a driver gives implied consent to a warrantless test of breath, blood, or urine by a police officer if the driver is arrested for a violation of Minnesota’s DWI statute. A driver does not, however, have give implied consent to a chemical test after he or she has been involved in a crash if no arrest occurs. MN Stat. § 169A.51, Subd. 3.
Second, implied consent is also tested by Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law, which dictates what happens if either a post-arrest chemical test is not completed or the driver refuses the test. If a driver refuses a breath, blood, or urine test, driving privileges can be revoked on a first-time basis for up to 90 days. If a driver submits a sample that yields an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, the driver’s license or driving privileges can be revoked for up to one year. MN Stat. § 169A.52, Subds. 1, 2, 7. An alcohol concentration above the per se legal limit of .08 in the driver’s blood or breath qualifies as a Level 1 violation. MN Stat. §§ 169A.01, Subd. 7; .20, Subd. 1(5).
The alcohol concentration remaining relevant to a driver’s driving privileges after a criminal charge becomes final will vary depending upon which court the driver was charged and/or convicted. In the First Judicial District, a District Court conviction is not appealable to the Court of Appeals for ten days, when it is filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State. In this district, you have the right to challenge both the criminal conviction and the civil implied consent suspension. If you are successful at the criminal level, you can then return to District Court to be reinstated. When a conviction is overturned after it has been filed with the Secretary of State, they do not receive notice and your license remains suspended until further action is taken to reinstate it.
Consequences for Drivers Who Do Not Comply
Refusal to test is grounds to revoke the driver’s license. An officer must inform the driver when the breath, blood or urine test is required and explain that refusal to submit will result in immediate suspension of the driver’s license. The refusal remains in effect for one year from the date of the notice. A driver may invoke a right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to test, but only if such discussion does not unreasonably delay the collection of the specimen. If the driver submits to the required test, the result is conclusive proof of the driver’s guilt, if an administrative penalty is imposed, for the term of the penalty. In contrast, the driver’s refusal to test is considered conclusive proof of guilt for the purpose of any criminal conviction based on drunk driving. A DWI case requires both an administrative sanction and a criminal sanction. If the driver submits to the test, criminal prosecution is usually more likely to result in a conviction for a lesser offense, often requiring no jail time and a shorter license revocation period than otherwise required. If the driver refuses to test, the prosecutor’s case is much stronger.
If the testing is done during a police traffic stop in Minnesota, the driver has an implied consent under state law that subjects them to test procedures. A driver can refuse to test, but there are penalties including substantial monetary fines and lengthened license suspensions. If a driver refuses a test a second time within six years, the suspension is for two years. In cases where alcohol is detected, ignition interlock may be required even when a driver doesn’t want to voluntarily submit to the testing.
With the exception of serious injury, vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation, the automatic license revocation period for first-time offenders of driving while intoxicated is:
The Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) may give the offender a work permit for occupational, medical, school, emergencies, and other reasons determined by DVS authority. Depending on the seriousness of the crime and other circumstances, the court may also order the interlock devices on all private vehicles of those convicted of DWI.
Legal Proceedings Following a Refusal
After refusal to submit, there is a possibility of two legal actions facing the license holder. First, there is the actual criminal case itself, and second, there is the DWI referee hearing to determine whether your license should be revoked, and if so, for how long. If you are charged with a DWI and you are ultimately found guilty or plead guilty, then you have the opportunity to get your license back relatively soon if your lawyer is able to get you a Stay of Summary revocation in place pending appeal so you can drive throughout the entire pendency of your case and appeal (if it goes that far). You can also seek a Temporary Permit after conviction. In any event, your license will be reinstated upon payment of a fine or the completion of whatever term of probation you are sentenced to. After a DWI Refusal, however, your license is only eligible for reinstatement after one year (usually) and then only after you jump through all the bureaucratic hoops (including the payment of all the fines and fees) that DOT requires to process an application for a license reinstatement. In addition, by statute, you will be required to pay an additional $250 fine to the State of Minnesota for the DWI Refusal. This additional $250 fine becomes even more of a burden when you consider that if you were convicted of DWI in the first place, the economic burden is already severe, and then you are also paying an additional fine for the DWI Refusal. Furthermore, none of the additional fine money paid towards your license reinstatement application is actually applied to getting your license back any sooner. If you blow .08 or higher and refuse to submit to chemical testing, then you have a right to a DWI Refusal hearing. DWI Refusal hearings, however, are not criminal matters. These are administrative proceedings, and the procedural rules for these types of hearing are very different than a typical criminal trial. You have a right to present witnesses on your behalf, to call law enforcement officers to testify and be cross examined, and to be represented by a lawyer. If the DWI Refusal hearing goes your way, then the filing of charges against you and the associated fines and license revocation are eliminated entirely. However, if you lose the DWI Refusal hearing, you can put off the Revocation of your license until you have challenged the outcome of the hearing in Court (through the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari), but ultimately the loss of the hearing will leave you with few options to beat a DWI, other than a Return of the Statutory DWI Charge and perhaps a challenge to the Administrative Revocation through a civil suit filed in Court.
Exceptions and Unique Circumstances
Unless the driver is unconscious, a peace officer must possess probable cause to believe that the driver has been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 before the driver can be required to submit to chemical testing for blood alcohol concentration. If the driver refuses, the consequences are set forth in Minnesota Statute § 169A.53, which can include license suspension and/or civil penalties.
While the statutory phrase "only if" appears quite restrictive, a few exceptions exist. A peace officer need not have probable cause in some limited situations where the driver cannot make a choice at the time of the stop to refuse testing. The first scenario is for drivers who lack capacity to refuse due to a physical or mental condition. The second scenario relates to a driver whose blood alcohol level has risen substantially between the time of the stop and when the test occurs. Courts have held that a defendant who is intoxicated at the time of the stop has "impliedly consented to continuous analysis of his blood alcohol concentration level from the moment he was stopped." State v. Florell, 725 N.W.2d 816 , 822 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
The effect of increasing blood alcohol content is illustrated in the case of State v. Underdahl, 682 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). There, the officer observed the driver weaving all over the road. The driver was arrested, but the blood draw occurred nearly three hours after arrest. The results of the testing showed a blood-alcohol content of .086. Despite the time delay, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the conviction on the basis of the duo presumptions found in statutes. First, based on the officer’s observations, the court presumed the driver’s refusal was intentional, one of the statutory grounds for permitting evidentiary use of the test result for a prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20. Second, the results of the test, above the legal limit of .08, was considered the statutory presumptive proof that the driver had been violating the statute at the time of the stop. Minn. Stat. § 169A.35, subd. 3. As such, the presumption of a blood alcohol level above .08 at the time of the offense was sufficient to sustain the conviction, even where the testing occurred later than direct evidence would have shown.
Seeking Legal Advice and Defense
All Minnesota drivers should take the implied consent law seriously, and be aware that if you’re ever pulled over for any reason, you do have rights. If you are arrested on suspicion of DWI, then – regardless of the circumstances – you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately after your arrest. He or she will be able to answer your immediate questions and take steps to protect your driving privileges if you have a case to challenge the administrative revocation. Auto law generally does not require criminal defense attorneys to also be experts in personal injury, also, so it is a good idea to go to an auto injury lawyer to advise you on damages if you suffered injury in the course of the events leading to your arrest.
If you are charged with a crime, everything said to an attorney by a client is considered confidential, and anything the attorney learns from the client subsequent to the arrest is also confidential. The attorney cannot reveal the client’s secrets without his or her consent. The only exception to the rule of confidentiality for criminal defense lawyers is that they may be compelled by law to report instances of child abuse, however that is probably not going to be of much practical significance for clients charged with DWI.
Common criminal defense strategies attorneys will use in response to an implied consent arrest and chemical test failure include: Your attorney may also argue for leniency based on the following: It’s important to understand that a drunk driving allegation is serious business. Minnesota’s criminal justice system can be quite unforgiving, and you may be subject to a variety of severe penalties if you are convicted of driving while impaired, or if you refuse testing when stopped by police. Whatever you do, don’t attempt to defend yourself without an attorney. That is never a good idea.
Recent Revisions and Legal Reforms
In recent years, both Minnesota courts and the legislature have made a number of changes regarding certain requirements related to the state’s implied consent law. One of the most significant such changes was in 2018, when the Minnesota Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to impose additional criminal charges on people for refusing chemical testing under the state’s implied consent law. This came as a result of the court’s decision in State v. Thompson, which found that it was truly unreasonable for a person to have to choose between potential criminal charges and mortality when deciding whether to submit to testing or refuse.
In the wake of this ruling, the Minnesota legislature sought to repeal certain duplicate criminal charges that were enacted for refusal offenses. It earlier repealed recurring gross misdemeanor charges for repeat DWI offenders, and then repealed those same charges for first-time DWI offenders with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16 percent or more. This means individuals who refuse testing now only face a civil penalty—financially speaking—or a test under threat of criminal charges if they do so.
At the time of the writing of this blog post , the next pieces of legislation moving through the Minnesota legislature regarding implied consent were not yet passed, but many were strong suggestions from law enforcement in the districts of legislators throughout the Twin Cities that those legislators seek what is technically a loophole in the Minnesota statutory definition of "intoxication."
Under Minnesota’s implied consent law (Minn. Stat. § 169A.51), a Peace Officer may reasonably believe a driver is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other substances and is operating a motor vehicle while impaired and may detain the individual and request a test be completed. Refusal to complete a test is an immediate civil penalty of $200 or $4,000 if the person submits to a test but has a .08% or higher result for alcohol, and also has a .08% or higher result during any period of the next two years. Proposed amendments are being made to supposedly clarify the law to allow Minnesota Peace Officers to require a test from a driver who is impaired by drugs but is still able to operate a motor vehicle.