The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that a warrant is not required to perform a breath test of an individual arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated because such a search falls into the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In so concluding, the court also held that a statute criminalizing one’s refusal to take a breath test did not violate his or her due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because no fundamental right was violated.
This case note first discusses the relevant case law surrounding Fourth Amendment searches in general and the justification required to conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment. It next discusses the facts and procedural history of the Bernard case, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s findings and holdings, and the opinion of the dissenters. This note also examines how the Minnesota Supreme Court’s holding contradicts Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by misinterpreting the search-incident- to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement. This note argues that, based on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a warrantless search of one’s breath following an arrest is not justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Also addressed in this note is how the holding violates public policy considerations courts often consider in due process violation situations. Finally, this note will conclude that Bernard’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated because Minnesota has effectively criminalized his right to refuse unconstitutional searches.