WASHINGTON – Minnesota's hotly debated law that makes it a crime for suspected drunken drivers to refuse a breath test is facing its toughest test Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of the measure.
Two attorneys representing Dakota County will argue on behalf of Minnesota in State vs. Bernard, while D.C.-based attorney Charles Rothfeld will argue for William Bernard of Eagan.
Police approached Bernard at a public boat ramp in 2012 and asked him to consent to sobriety tests, saying he smelled of alcohol. Bernard declined the tests and was arrested, which led to felony charges for refusal to submit to chemical testing. Defense lawyers argue this law is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits police from searching "persons, houses, papers and effects" unless there is a proper search warrant.
In the Bernard case, Minnesota's state Court of Appeals upheld the state law that makes it a crime to refuse to take the test. But lawyers on the other side, including Dan Koewler, a Minnesota-based defense attorney, argue that punishing someone for refusing a blood, breath or urine test is unconstitutional.
"It does not make our roads any safer, it's just a way to get easy convictions, and I'm expecting the Supreme Court to strike it down," said Koewler, who is in D.C. for oral arguments Wednesday. "I don't want drunken drivers on the roads. I just want the state to have a constitutional way of arresting and convicting people who are breaking these laws."
Koewler's firm was litigating this issue in front of the state's Supreme Court back in 2009, when it ruled that drunken driving suspects could be criminally charged for refusing to consent to alcohol testing.
Some attorneys estimate that authorities administer 20,000 breath tests each year in Minnesota.
Last year, more than 100 Minnesota drivers had at least 10 driving while intoxicated convictions and almost 1,500 drivers had six or more DWI convictions, said the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.