In less than six months after State v. Brooks, the Minnesota Supreme Court has granted petition for review in FOUR unpublished DWI cases to be decided in light of Brooks and McNeely.
The first three cases are Isaacson, Moen, and Manska, which were accepted for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, but stayed pending the Court’s pending decision in Bernard, because all three of these cases directly challenge the constitutionality of Minnesota’s refusal law. The results will no doubt be dramatic for refusal cases, but also for cases involving Minnesota’s Implied Consent Advisory itselfandacirc;??which is nearly every DWI in the state of Minnesota.
In the fourth case, State v. Lindquist, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review for both the Defendant’s appeal and on the State’s cross-appeal. The dual grounds for accepting this case may be telling, especially because the State’s cross-appeal asks that the Supreme Court adopt a “Good Faith Exception| to the warrant requirementandacirc;??the route advocated by Justice Stras in his concurring opinion in Brooks.
Check back here later this week where we will discuss the possible impact of these casesandacirc;??both in the present and in the future. With four Brooks-related cases at the Minnesota Supreme Court after just six months, expect big changes in Minnesota’s DWI laws in the near future.
