The Supreme Court of South Dakota recently handed down a unanimous decision stating that either a warrant or consent is needed in order to take a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver. With a woman in the case, who refused to take the test argued to the State Supreme court that it is a serious invasion of privacy to have your skin pierced and blood taken, it raises the question for other states as well: is a warrant or consent required for blood samples or other blood alcohol tests? This recent South Dakota ruling is consistent with the US Supreme Court’s decision last year of Missouri v. McNeely.
In the state of North Dakota, there is an implied consent law which states that you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood, breath, or urine if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause you were driving under the influence. The type of test is selected by the officer, and it must be taken within two hours of being pulled over. If you refuse the test, penalties range from one to four years of license revocation, as well as, being charged with the crime of DUI/refusal.
Minnesota has similar implied consent laws, stating if an officer has probable cause to believe you were driving or boating while intoxicated, you are consenting to taking a blood alcohol content test. The consent is carried over when you are involved in an accident involving property damage, serious injury, or death, regardless of whether or not you are placed under arrest. The penalties in Minnesota for refusing a test are a criminal charge for refusal of the chemical test as well as one year of license revocation for all offenses.
Because these laws vary by state to state, it can be difficult to understand your rights. If you have been arrested for driving under the influence, contact a DUI attorney at O’Keeffe O’Brien Lyson Foss Attorneys. With years of experience, our attorneys will work to help you get the best result for your unique case. Contact us today.
Image courtesy of/ Scott Davidson