Should a police officer be required to read someone the state's implied-consent advisory before taking samples from a suspect?
That's the question that faced Minnesota Supreme Court justices Tuesday.
It stems from a 2016 case out of Mower county where a man arrested for DUI agreed to submit a urine sample, but was not informed of his limited right to contact an attorney before testing.
The question is if that testing is admissible in court, and in compliance with the state's "implied consent" law.
The state and Austin based attorney Brandon Lawhead argued the case Tuesday morning at the St. Thomas University Law School.
“The Minnesota Supreme Court only accepts about 10% of the petitions to be heard before the Supreme Court," says Lawhead. "This means that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making a decision that will have a significant impact on citizens in the State of Minnesota. This decision very well may could have a National impact, as well."
A decision could come in the next 60 days.
Can't Find Something?
6301 Bandel Road NW, Rochester, MN 55901
Switchboard: 507-252-4747 or 1-877-369-4788
News tips: 507-281-4747 or email@example.com