Nation’s Highest Court Weighs ND, MN Drunk Driving Laws

Lawyers will argue a Supreme Court case about whether or not it’s a crime to refuse an alcohol test if you’re pulled over.

Police in these parts are used to dealing with drunk drivers.

But after Wednesday in Washington, getting them to take blood or breath tests may get a bit more complicated.

“There’s an implied consent law in Minnesota. Meaning if you get a driver’s license, you consent to take the test,” said Clay County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Steve Landsem.

Attorneys say in North Dakota, the courts have pretty much ruled the law’s constitutional. As you cross into Minnesota, it gets a bit more complicated. Those lower courts haven’t been consistent in their rulings, and they’ve agreed that blood is a lot more invasive than a breath test is.

“The legal issue is, it’s basically criminalizing an exercise of a constitutional right,” said Vogel Law Firm’s Mark Friese, a criminal defense attorney and former law enforcement officer.

The High Court will weigh whether police should have to get warrants before testing your blood alcohol level, or whether testing it without consent is a major personal invasion.

The question’s so murky, Clay County agencies have already started ironing out a new driving while intoxicated search warrant process, but they say it creates a hassle.

“It’s taking another person off the street, to go write this warrant, get it signed and come back,” Landsem said.

Defense attorneys don’t buy that argument…and they predict the high court won’t either.

“That process has sped up enormously. Telephonic, electronic search warrants are admissible, judges are on call. Any competent police officer can get a warrant in under 15 minutes,” said Friese.

If the high court overturns the laws, it could mean drivers here won’t be automatically charged with a crime if they refuse to have their blood alcohol tested when pulled over.