According to current Minnesota DWI refusal law, it is a crime for a person to refuse to allow law enforcement warrantless access into an area where the person has an expectation of privacy. It is also a crime for that person to refuse to give potential evidence against himself or herself.
Change the scenario: Law enforcement comes to your house and tells you have a choice to either let them come in or not. But if you don’t let them come into search your house you will be charged with a crime of “refusing” to allow them to come into your house. You refuse to allow them to come in without a search warrant and you are now charged with the more severe crime of “refusal.”
Today’s decision further erodes the privacy rights of the citizenry. In State v. Bernard, NW2d , (Minn. App. March 17, 2014), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held “[t]he state is not constitutionally precluded from criminalizing a suspected drunk driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test under circumstances in which the requesting officer had grounds to have obtained a constitutionally reasonable nonconsensual chemical test by securing and executing a warrant requiring the driver to submit to testing.”
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa131245-031714.pdf
The college’s mission statement states that “In sum, the mission of the College is to vindicate the promise of the United States Constitution, that a citizen accused has the right to the effective assistance of his or her counsel.”
https://www.ncdd.com
https://www.ncdd.com/sessions-and-seminars/523334261f1d75ae77357a8b/2014-mastering-scientific-evidence-co-sponsored-by-ncdd-and-tcdla
http://www.mscj.org/mscjminnesotadwiseminarcle.html
“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota for further consideration in light of Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. ___ (2013).”