Latest Update Regarding DWI Search Warrants
Blood; Urine Test Refusal Unconstitutional in Minnesota!
State v. Trahan / Thompson (the State’s act of criminalizing a driver’s refusal to consent to warrantless blood or urine alcohol testing violates due process). This case has huge implications for the validity of many DUI prosecutions in the State of Minnesota. The issue may have an impact on both refusal or test failure cases. As a result, please consult your attorney immediately to determine the applicability of this new precedent to your specific Minnesota DWI case. There are strict deadlines that your attorney will need to meet for both criminal and Implied Consent cases.
In 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that these precedents apply retroactively as well, but it is imperative that you seek counsel immediately in order to preserve your right to challenge past or present cases.
The latest very important result in the DWI search warrant realm was Mr. Tschida’s successful case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Nash vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, — N.W.2d — (Minn. App. 2023) (police having search warrant must refer to both blood and urine when warning what action constitutes the crime of refusal, rather than referring to the type of test that is being offered as that practice is inherently confusing and misleading).
Let our experience be your guide