State v. Larivee

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3(a) (1998) required a person to submit to the state-administered chemical test as a condition precedent to obtaining an independent blood-alcohol test while in custody. The court further held that denying an independent test after the defendant refused the police-administered test did not violate due process or the right to a fair trial. The court affirmed the court of appeals and did not reach the collateral-estoppel issue.

Holdings

1. Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3(a) (1998), grants a statutory right to an independent chemical test only after the person has submitted to the chemical test administered at the direction of a peace officer; submission to the state's test is therefore a condition precedent to the independent-test right.
2. The denial of an independent blood-alcohol-concentration test did not violate Larivee's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial because he refused the police-administered test, the independent test was not shown to possess apparent exculpatory value significant to his defense, comparable evidence was reasonably available through the police-administered test, and the record showed no bad-faith denial.
3. The supreme court did not decide the collateral-estoppel issue because its resolution of the statutory and constitutional issues in the state's favor made it unnecessary to reach that argument.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3(a) (1998), required a person to submit to the police-administered chemical test as a condition precedent to the statutory right to obtain an independent test.
2. Whether denying an independent blood-alcohol-concentration test to a person who refused the police-administered test violated the constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
3. Whether collateral estoppel barred Larivee from litigating in his criminal DUI trial an issue previously decided in a civil implied-consent proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed