Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated State v. Melde and State v. Myers to determine whether Minnesota's implied consent advisory violated federal or state procedural due process by failing to specify that refusal to submit to chemical testing is a gross misdemeanor carrying potentially harsher penalties than test failure. The court held that the advisory, which informed arrestees that refusal is a crime, was constitutionally sufficient and affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the dismissals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Minnesota's implied consent advisory violated federal procedural due process by failing to inform DWI arrestees that test refusal was a gross misdemeanor carrying potentially harsher penalties than test failure.
- Whether the same omission violated procedural due process under the Minnesota Constitution.
- Whether the district courts properly dismissed the test-refusal charges on constitutional grounds.
Holdings
- The implied consent advisory did not violate federal procedural due process by informing arrestees that refusal to submit to chemical testing was a crime without specifying the precise classification or enhanced penalties of the offense.
- The implied consent advisory did not violate procedural due process under the Minnesota Constitution by failing to inform arrestees that test refusal was a gross misdemeanor or that it could result in harsher criminal penalties than test failure.
Key quotations
“This warning makes it clear that a test-refusal is not a "safe harbor."” (104)
“To go beyond that to inform an arrestee that the crime is a gross misdemeanor might be appropriate, but it is not an issue of constitutional imperative.” (106)
Factual background
Daniel Melde and Alan Myers were separately arrested for driving while impaired after officers determined that probable cause existed. Each was read Minnesota's standard implied consent advisory, which stated that refusal to submit to chemical testing was a crime; each had an opportunity to consult with counsel, although neither obtained legal advice before refusing or being deemed to have refused testing. Both were charged with DWI offenses, including gross-misdemeanor test refusal, and the district courts dismissed the refusal charges because the advisory did not specify that refusal was a gross misdemeanor carrying harsher penalties than test failure.
Procedural history
The Hennepin County and Olmsted County district courts dismissed the appellants' test-refusal charges, concluding that Minnesota's implied consent advisory violated federal and state procedural due process because it did not disclose that refusal was a gross misdemeanor carrying harsher penalties than test failure. The court of appeals reversed both dismissals and remanded for trial. The Supreme Court of Minnesota consolidated the appeals and affirmed the court of appeals.
Remand instructions
The court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the district court dismissals and its remand of the test-refusal charges for trial.