Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court released its decisions in State v. Trahan and State v. Thompson, striking down the Minnesota test refusal statute as it applies to refusing to submit to blood and urine tests in the context of a DWI arrest. In Trahan, the driver was charged with gross misdemeanor test refusal when he refused to consent to giving a sample of his blood following an arrest for DWI. In Thompson, the driver was charged with gross misdemeanor test refusal when he refused to consent to giving a sample of his urine following an arrest for DWI.
In June, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Birchfield v. North Dakota that, absent a warrant, a state cannot prosecute someone who refuses to submit to a blood test. Worth noting is that the Supreme Court did permit a state to prosecute someone who refused to provide a breath sample.
Today, following the lead of the United States Supreme Court, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the crime of test refusal, as it applies to a request for a blood or urine test, is unconstitutional. Following the Trahan and Thompson cases, a driver who refuses to submit to a blood or urine test (absent a warrant), cannot be criminally prosecuted for refusing to submit to the blood or urine test.