Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court re-affirmed the principle that a person does not have to “voluntarily” give police incriminating evidence, including a DNA sample, and by inference, other biological evidence such as a blood, breath or urine sample. See State v. Larson. Since the Supreme Court ruled in Larson that it was illegal for the trial judge to to mention that the defendant refused to to take a voluntary DNA test, doesn’t this mean that the DWI refusal statute, Minn. Stat. Sec. 169A.20, subd. 2, is unconstitutional. The police can ask you to voluntarily blow into a machine or give a DNA sample, or allow a search of your house. BUT, you have a right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to *voluntarily* give evidence against yourself, whether in the form of a statement or in the form of biological evidence or specimen, like a cheek swab or DNA test. The police, of course, can always get a warrant to force you to give a blood sample or allow a search of your basement. SO, doesn’t that mean the crime of DWI Test refusal is an Unconstitutional violation of your right not to give evidence against yourself ??? If the police have a warrant or probable cause and exigent circumstances, they can take a sample from you, but they can’t punish you for not voluntarily giving up the goods, right???
If you have been unfairly charged with DWI Test Refusal in violation of your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, WE CAN HELP YOU. Call Keller Law Offices at 952-913-1421 or visit www.KellerLawOffices.com.
