The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution clearly prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. In light of what can be found in a person’s blood with today’s technology, defining what constitutes an unreasonable search or unreasonable seizure in biological sample extraction has become a challenge. Particularly, medical and personal information is becoming increasingly discoverable. Such discoverability has caused federal and state courts to pause and consider what this means for an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.
This Note first describes the history of United States law and Minnesota law on blood draw testing. This Note goes on to describe Minnesota’s current search and seizure limitations—namely the Particularity Clause and guidelines for warrant interpretation. Next, this Note explains the facts and procedural history, the majority discussion and decision, and the dissenting opinions of the Minnesota Supreme Court case State v. Fawcett. This Note then analyzes the majority’s two main assertions:
- the testing of a blood draw is a search; and
- a warrant for a blood draw must particularly describe how the blood will be tested.
This Note argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s characterization of a blood draw as a search is proper. This Note also argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court erred because the warrant at issue did not particularly describe the search of Fawcett’s blood for alcohol and drugs. This Note concludes by describing how the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Fawcett (1) sheds light on how cases around the United States may be decided after the recent United States Supreme Court Birchfield decision, and (2) sets new precedent in Minnesota.