The Legal Power Of Bauer

Blood alcohol test requires implied consent advisory

by | Jun 26, 2017 | Blood Alcohol Tests, Firm News |

All states have implied consent laws, and most drivers who refuse chemical sobriety tests may be subject to penalties such as loss of license or even jail time. When someone drives in Minnesota, that person automatically consents to any breath, urine or blood alcohol test requested by a police officer who has probable cause to believe the person is impaired while driving. Often, the results of a preliminary breath test give police cause to search a driver’s vehicle, which may lead to other unrelated charges.

One important component of the implied consent law in Minnesota is that the officer must read an implied consent advisory which instructs the driver of the state laws concerning tests for the presence of alcohol and the consequences for refusing the test. Recently, a man was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence. Police say his appearance and demeanor suggested he was impaired, and he allegedly failed two field sobriety tests and registered alcohol in his system on a preliminary breath test.

Police subsequently searched the man’s car and reported finding evidence of methamphetamine. When an officer asked him to submit a urine sample for a test, the man reportedly replied, “Why not?” However, the driver claims he was never read his implied consent advisory or told he could contact an attorney. A county judge agreed that the urine test was not admissible, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals reinstated the evidence. The case will now proceed to trial.

Evidence is crucial to proving the guilt of anyone suspected of a crime. However, the evidence must be gathered within the boundaries of the law. When a driver’s rights are violated to obtain evidence, that driver deserves a strong defense in court. A driver has the right to seek the advice of an attorney regarding the administration of a breath, urine or blood alcohol test.

Source:, “Appeals court reverses Mower County DWI ruling“, Kay Fate, June 22, 2017

FindLaw Network