Minnesota's Implied Consent Law

Attorney Jeff Sheridan of Sheridan & Dulas, P.A., is at the forefront of Minnesota DWI implied consent laws. If you have been charged with drinking and driving and you submitted a blood, breath or urine sample, you should talk to a DWI defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Attorney Sheridan represented defendant Wesley Brooks in a DWI case that challenged the way Minnesota police officers obtain alcohol concentration evidence. The Brooks case raises important questions: Does someone truly give their consent to a warrantless search of their body when they are told that by refusing the test, they are committing a crime? And in a larger sense, does implied consent amount to coercion?

Understanding Implied Consent Law

Minnesota's implied consent law was passed in 1961. Under the implied consent law, any person with a driver's license is automatically deemed to have consented to chemical testing during a drunk driving arrest. Refusing to consent to a chemical test can result in criminal charges.

Critics of implied consent laws argue that law enforcement should have to get a search warrant for an alcohol concentration sample. They argue that these warrantless searches violate Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Attorney Jeff Sheridan represented Wesley Brooks in a high-profile DWI case in Minnesota. Brooks had previously been convicted of drunk driving three times, providing blood and urine samples each time.

The Brooks case eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. A similar case (McNeely vs. Missouri) was also heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Contact a Minnesota DWI Lawyer Today

For more information about the Brooks Case, or to set up a consultation at our Eagan law office, please contact us online today or call us at 651-968-1249.

Find out more about the Brooks Case: