The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments today about the constitutionality of criminal DWI test refusal statutes. In Minnesota, when a driver has been arrested on probable cause for driving while impaired, a police officer can require the driver to take a test to determine blood alcohol concentration. The officer tells the driver he or she can consult with an attorney first, but must either consent to the test or be charged with a crime for refusing. If the driver refuses to submit to the test, he or she can be charged with a gross misdemeanor, which carries a maximum criminal penalty of up to 365 days in jail and a $3,000 fine. Currently, in Minnesota, officers are required to obtain warrants before forcing suspected drunk drivers to submit to blood or urine tests under the penalty of law. But officers do not need warrants for breath tests.
Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court today involved a number of issues. A transcript of the hearing can be found here. Some highlights:
- Justices Kagan and Breyer both seemed to suggest that since breath tests are less intrusive than blood tests, then perhaps warrants are only required for blood and not breath.
- Most justices seemed confused over the differences between roadside breath tests and breath tests taken at jails and police stations.
- Chief Justice Roberts drew an analogy between driving while impaired and texting and driving. He asked a line of questions about whether officers could search without a warrant of the phone of a suspected texting driver.
- Justices Sotomayor, Alito, Breyer, and Kennedy all sharply questioned the alleged impracticalities of officers obtaining warrants by cell phone or some electronic means. Justice Breyer imagined a hypothetical where officers are given a cell phone with a big “W” button on it to push to speak with a judge and receive an answer on a warrant within 30 seconds.
- The Court firmly held their ground that blood tests require warrants, as decided in McNeely.
- Justice Kagan suggested that officer have no excuse for NOT obtaining warrants after arresting a suspected DWI driver and transporting them to a jail or police station for a Datamaster breath test.
The Court’s decision is expected sometime later this summer.