U.S. Supreme Court action taken in April may have consequences in Koochiching County District Court yet this year.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court reinterpreted the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures as it relates to the driving while intoxicated laws when it overruled a previous case.
On Tuesday, two local attorneys argued that the high court’s reinterpretation and overruling of Missouri v. McNeely means that there must be more of an exigency, or urgent need or demand, to justify drawing blood, or using urine and breath tests, as evidence of drunken driving without first obtaining a warrant.
Koochiching County District Court Judge Charles LeDuc is expected to rule on motions made in the cases in about 90 days.
Until the court action in April, most courts agreed that blood tests were allowed without a warrant because of the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream creating an exigency justifying the blood to be drawn and the search to be conducted without the delay of seeking a warrant.
Attorneys Steven Nelson and Kim Wimmer challenged the use of such evidence in six local pending DWI cases.
Nelson and Wimmer moved that the blood alcohol content test results of one defendant be suppressed. In addition, they argued that breath and urine tests of the other clients should be handled the same way because of a case in Sibley County, Minn., where a district court ruling upheld the Missouri v. McNeely decision, and ordered that a defendant’s urine test be suppressed as evidence, because the seizure, in this case the taking of urine, required a warrant or evidence that the police could not reasonably obtain a warrant.
In addition, Nelson argued that the implied consent law asks drivers to give up the rights protected under the Fourth Amendment by taking blood, alcohol or breath tests or give up driving.
Local prosecutors, county Attorney Jeff Naglosky and International Falls Attorney Steven Shermoen argued, among other issues, that the defendants participated in the tests, and in one case refused a test, prior to the April decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The police followed the law as it existed at the time of the offense,” said Naglosky.
He also argued that that the Missouri case was different than the cases being challenged because it involved an officer forcibly taking blood.
He said suppression of the results of the tests is not the remedy and asked the judge to deny and dismiss the motions.
Shermoen said because driving is a privilege, an application for a driver’s license carries with it the responsibility to submit to tests if an officer suspects driving and driving.
He said reliance upon the McNeely decision in the cases is misplaced.
