Today the Anderson Law Firm had another matter accepted by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Earlier today, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review in the case of State v. Boyd, which involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the criminal charge of refusing to submit to a warrantless chemical test following an arrest for suspected DWI. Essentially, the issue is whether the State can impose criminal sanctions on an individual who exercises their constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and refuses to submit to a warrantless test.
Currently, the law in the State of Minnesota is that if an individual is arrested for suspicion of a DWI, they are required to submit to a chemical test whether or not the police have a warrant. If the individual invokes their right and refuses to submit to the warrantless test, then they are charged with a DWI – Refusal, which is a more severe charge than the DWI itself.
It has been Kirk Anderson’s argument for years that if the State can impose criminal sanctions upon an individual who invokes their constitutional rights, then the United States Constitution is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land, but is merely advisory. Such a radical departure from more than 200 years of legal precedent cannot be what the framers of our country envisioned when they the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently took the same issue under advisement in State v. Bernard, and should be issuing a decision in the upcoming months. The Supreme Court stayed the Boyd case pending its decision in Bernard.
DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this article does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Please contact attorney Kirk Anderson for an initial consultation.