Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-1419 Jesse Wayne Harrison, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. Filed May 4, 2010 Affirmed Stoneburner, Judge Carver County District Court File Nos. 10CV09310; 10CV09490 Richard L. Swanson, Chaska, Minnesota (for appellant) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Melissa Eberhart, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Ross, Judge. SYLLABUS A person whose blood sample is lawfully obtained and preserved in connection with a valid request under the implied-consent law has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the amount of alcohol contained in the sample and, therefore, subsequent testing of the sample to determine the alcohol concentration does not constitute a search that implicates constitutional protection.

OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge In this consolidated appeal, appellant challenges decisions of the district court sustaining two separate revocations of his driver's license. Appellant argues that after his lawfully-obtained blood sample was preserved, the warrantless testing of the sample for its alcohol concentration violated his federal and state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. Appellant asserts that the district court in each case erred by failing to suppress evidence of his alcohol concentration as the fruit of an illegal search, and erred by sustaining the license revocations that were based on the illegally obtained evidence. FACTS In early 2009, appellant Jesse Wayne Harrison was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI) on two separate occasions and was asked to consent to testing under the implied-consent law. On each occasion, Harrison consented to a blood test to determine his alcohol concentration. Harrison was, on each occasion, transported to a hospital where a blood sample was drawn. Harrison was cooperative during both incidents, and he concedes that the blood samples were lawfully seized. The samples were analyzed to determine Harrison's alcohol concentration. The results of each test indicated an alcohol concentration over the legal limit. The Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Harrison's driver's license under the implied-consent law in each case. Harrison challenged the license revocations, arguing that the alcohol-concentration evidence in each case was inadmissible because testing the 2

preserved blood samples for their alcohol concentration without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search, in violation of his constitutional rights. In each case, the district court sustained the license revocation, concluding that because Harrison's blood was lawfully seized, a warrant was not required for the subsequent testing. This appeal follows. ISSUE Does the warrantless testing for alcohol concentration in a blood sample, which was lawfully obtained from a person under the implied-consent law, constitute an illegal search under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions? ANALYSIS I. Our standard of review is de novo. A proceeding to challenge the revocation of a driver's license under the impliedconsent statute is civil in nature, not criminal. State v. Dumas, 587 N.W.2d 299, 303 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 1999). Harrison's challenge to the license revocations is based only on his assertion of violation of his rights to be free of unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution. Because Harrison raises only a question of law, our review is de novo. See Shane v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 587 N.W.2d 639, 641 (Minn. 1998) (stating that, where the facts of a case are undisputed, questions of law are reviewed de novo).

3

II.

The exclusionary rule applies to implied-consent proceedings. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant

part, that the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue without probable cause. Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution contains a parallel provision. Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution is inadmissible for criminal prosecution in a court of law. State v. Jackson, 742 N.W.2d 163, 177

Download A09-1419, Jesse Wayne Harrison, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Publi

Minnesota Law