McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety
| Citation | 473 N.W.2d 848 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. C6-90-53,C1-90-249 and C5-90-478,C7-90-224,s. C6-90-53 |
| Parties | Lisa Kay McDONNELL, Petitioner, Appellant, Cindy Jean Moser, Petitioner, Appellant, Troy Eugene Weeding, Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Keith Arnold DRIVER, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Jeffrey S. Sheridan, Inver Grove Heights, for Lisa Kay McDonnell.
Meshbesher Birrell & Dunlap, Steven J. Meshbesher, John J. Leunig, Minneapolis, for Cindy Jean Moser, appellant.
Sharon L. Buffington, Stillwater, and Theodore D. Dooley, Minneapolis, for Troy Weeding, appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, State Atty. Gen., Paul R. Kempainen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nancy J. Bode, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Comm. of Public Safety.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Paul R. Kempainen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nancy J. Bode, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, and James T. Reuter, Chisago, County Atty., Center City, for State of Minn.
Dean Grau, Minneapolis, and Robert J. Patient, St. Paul, for Keith Driver.
1. The drivers license revocation of an individual whose right to counsel guaranteed by article 1, section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution is violated must be rescinded.
2. The charge that an individual violated Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121, subd. 1a (1990), by refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing must be dismissed where police obtained the individual's refusal in violation of the right to counsel guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution.
3. Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 2(b)(2) (1990), and that portion of the Implied Consent Advisory based on it, are unconstitutional as applied to an individual who has not previously had her or his drivers license revoked.
4. Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121, subd. 1a (1990), imposing criminal penalties on certain individuals for refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing, does not violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination protected by both the state and federal constitutions.
District court orders rescinding drivers license revocations affirmed; district court order dismissing criminal refusal charge affirmed, case remanded for trial on remaining counts.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Moser v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Weeding v. Commissioner of Public Safety, and State v. Driver were consolidated for purposes of oral argument. Together, these appeals challenge the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121, subd. 1a (1990), which imposes criminal penalties on individuals who refuse to submit to blood alcohol content testing within five years of a prior drivers license revocation, and of Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 2(b) (1990), requiring an individual be advised "that if testing is refused, [s/he] may be subject to criminal penalties * * *," and "that after submitting to testing, the person has the right to consult with an attorney." 1
Police officers arrested appellant McDonnell on suspicion that she was driving while intoxicated and transported her to police headquarters. There an officer read appellant the Implied Consent Advisory provided by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, which included warning appellant, "[i]f testing is refused, your right to drive will be revoked for a minimum period of one year, and you may be subject to criminal penalties." As part of the Advisory, appellant was informed that she had the right to speak with an attorney after submitting to a breath test; she was not otherwise advised of her right to counsel either before or after being read the Implied Consent Advisory. 2 After stating that she did not understand the advisory, appellant refused to take a breath test. Pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 4 (Supp.1989), appellant's drivers license was revoked. 3
Following an implied consent hearing, 4 the district court for the First Judicial District, the Honorable Duane R. Harves presiding, rescinded the revocation of appellant's license. The court concluded that because appellant might have been exposed to criminal penalties for refusing to undergo testing, she was entitled to Miranda warnings, advising her of the right to remain silent and to consult an attorney, at the time she was asked to submit to a test. The Commissioner of Public Safety appealed the district court's order to the court of appeals.
Appellant Moser was arrested when a police officer observed her car swerving and suspected that she was driving while intoxicated. The officer transported appellant to police headquarters where he read her the Implied Consent Advisory 5, including the warning that refusal to submit to testing might expose her to criminal penalties. As part of the Advisory, appellant was also informed that she could speak with an attorney only after submitting to a test. Concluding that she would be subject to criminal penalties if she refused to submit to testing, appellant underwent a breath test. Because the test indicated an alcohol concentration exceeding 0.10, appellant's drivers license was revoked. 6
Following an implied consent hearing 7, the district court for the First Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas M. Murphy presiding, rescinded the revocation of appellant's license. The court concluded that the Implied Consent Advisory was a misstatement of the applicable law because appellant did not have a prior revocation and therefore could not be prosecuted for refusing to submit to testing. It reasoned that because the advisory was incorrect it was ineffective, providing grounds for rescinding the revocation of appellant's license. The Commissioner of Public Safety appealed the district court's rescission order to the court of appeals.
A deputy sheriff arrested appellant Weeding for driving while intoxicated after appellant failed a set of field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. The deputy read appellant the Implied Consent Advisory, warning appellant that he might be subject to criminal charges if he refused to undergo a breath test and that he could speak with an attorney after testing was completed. 8 Appellant acknowledged that he understood the advisory and refused to submit to testing. The deputy subsequently repeated the advisory and appellant again refused to provide a breath sample for chemical testing. Pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 4 (Supp.1989), appellant's drivers license was revoked. 9
The district court for the First Judicial District, the Honorable Philip T. Kanning presiding, rescinded the revocation of appellant's drivers license. The court reasoned that the advisory read to appellant misstated the law because it did not specifically inform him that if his drivers license had been revoked in the past five years, he would commit a crime by refusing a breath test. Instead, the court concluded, appellant was informed only that he "might" be subject to criminal penalties, thus misleading him as to the serious consequences of refusing to submit to chemical testing. The Commissioner of Public Safety appealed the court's rescission order to the court of appeals.
Appellant Driver was arrested for driving while intoxicated, was read the Implied Consent Advisory, and refused to undergo a breath test. The Advisory informed appellant that he might face criminal charges if he refused to submit to testing and that he would not be permitted to speak with an attorney until after testing was completed. 10 Appellant was subsequently charged by complaint with two counts of driving while intoxicated. Because appellant refused to submit to chemical testing at the time of his arrest and because his drivers license had been revoked once in the past five years, he was also charged with violating Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121, subd. 1a (1989) 11, the refusal provision.
Following a contested omnibus hearing, the district court for the Tenth Judicial District, the Honorable Linn Slattengren presiding, dismissed the refusal charge. The court concluded the refusal provision violates the fifth amendment privilege against compelled self incrimination and therefore is unenforceable. The state appealed the district court's order to the court of appeals.
Sitting en banc, the court of appeals reversed each of the appealed district court orders. See McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 460 N.W.2d 363, 365 (Minn.App.1990). 12 The majority held that neither the state nor the federal constitution requires that an individual be permitted to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a breath test, even though refusal may constitute a crime. Id. at 368. It further held that the refusal provision does not violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination although it permits the state to prosecute an individual on the basis of her or his own statement of refusal. Id. at 368-70. The court concluded that neither the refusal provision nor the Implied Consent Advisory is so inaccurate or misleading as to violate the constitutional guarantee of due process and thereby provide ground for rescinding appellants' drivers license revocations. Id. at 372-74. Finally, the court rejected one appellant's contention that the refusal provision violates equal protection guarantees by punishing only those with a prior license revocation for refusing to submit to chemical testing. Id. at 374. The court therefore reinstated the drivers license revocations of appellants McDonnell, Moser, and Weeding and reinstated the criminal refusal charge against appellant Driver, remanding his case to the district court for trial. Id. at 375. Appellants individually petitioned this court for review; their petitions were granted and their cases were consolidated for purposes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Neary-French
...was violated); Holmberg v. 54–A Judicial Dist. Judge, 60 Mich.App. 757, 759–760, 231 N.W.2d 543 (1975) ; McDonnell v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848, 853 (Minn.1991) (no right to counsel under Sixth Amendment but right to counsel exists under State Constitution); State v. Foste......
-
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...in the decision or consideration of this matter. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING YETKA, Justice. We stated in McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848, 853 (Minn.1991): [G]iven the reasonable reliance of law enforcement officials on prior decisions of this court in creating and ......
-
State v. Larivee
...submit to chemical testing does not violate Fifth Amendment rights of people suspected of drunk driving. See McDonnell v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848, 855 (Minn.1991). The majority's holding today, however, oversteps legitimate boundaries of what the state can do to compel a suspe......
-
State v. Bussmann, A05-1782.
...to one defendant and noting our doubts as to whether the statute could ever be constitutionally applied); McDonnell v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848, 855 (Minn.1991) (holding a Minnesota statute that required police to advise drivers that they were not permitted to consult with an a......
-
Administrative hearings
...how incorrect or incomplete implied consent warnings can violate the defendant’s rights, see McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety , 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991); State v. Thesing , 485 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. App. 1992). Pennsylvania’s implied consent law does not permit officials to cause a......