search incident to arrest exception in Minnesota

2016Because Bernard held that a warrantless breath test would have been constitutional under the search-incident-to-arrest exception, 859 N.W.2d at 767 , Minnesota’s test-refusal statute does not authorize an unconstitutional search and the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine does not apply.

2016The supreme court held that a warrantless breath test “would have been constitutional under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” Id. at 772 .

2019See Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (holding that warrantless breath testing of suspected impaired drivers was categorically permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, but that blood testing was not); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 156, 165, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (holding that "the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," and that "[w]hether a warra

2019See Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (holding that warrantless breath testing of suspected impaired drivers was categorically permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, but that blood testing was not); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 156, 165, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (holding that "the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," and that "[w]hether a warra

2015Bernard contends that because there is nothing he can do to destroy the evidence of alcohol concentration in his body, the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to a search of his breath under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), and Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013).

2015Bernard contends that because there is nothing he can do to destroy the evidence of alcohol concentration in his body, the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to a search of his breath under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), and Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013).

2017This court held in State v. Thompson, issued after appellant’s arrest, that a warrantless urine test could not “be justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception.” 873 N.W.2d 873, 878 (Minn. App. 2015), aff’d, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016).

2016Ayers also cites State v. Thompson, in which this court held that because a warrantless urine test of a driver would not have been constitutional under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, the test-refusal statute violated the driver’s right to substantive due process by criminalizing his refusal of an unconstitutional search. 873 N.W.2d 873, 876-80 (Minn. App. 2015), review granted (Minn. Feb. 24, 2016). 4 Ayers argues that under Trahan and Thompson, Minnesota’s implied-consent advisory is misleading regarding his obligation to submit to testing because he “is n

2019See Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (holding that warrantless breath testing of suspected impaired drivers was categorically permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, but that blood testing was not); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 156, 165, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (holding that "the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," and that "[w]hether a warra

2019See Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (holding that warrantless breath testing of suspected impaired drivers was categorically permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, but that blood testing was not); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 156, 165, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (holding that "the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," and that "[w]hether a warra

2019See Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (holding that warrantless breath testing of suspected impaired drivers was categorically permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, but that blood testing was not); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 156, 165, 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (holding that "the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," and that "[w]hether a warra

2017This court held in State v. Thompson, issued after appellant’s arrest, that a warrantless urine test could not “be justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception.” 873 N.W.2d 873, 878 (Minn. App. 2015), aff’d, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016).

2025See, e.g., Ortega, 770 N.W.2d at 149 n.2 (“[A]lthough ‘probable cause to arrest’ satisfies the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement when an arrest is made, ‘probable cause to search’ does not necessarily trigger an exception to the warrant requirement or lead to the conclusion that the search was otherwise reasonable.”); In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Minn. 1997) (“[P]robable cause to search and probable cause to arrest are distinct. . . .

2015G.M., 560 N.W.2d at 695 .

2016See, e.g., Riley, — U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2483-84 (discussing the search-incident-to-arrest exception).

2015After all, the Supreme Court framed the question in Riley as “whether application of the search incident to arrest doctrine to this particular category of effects would ‘untether the rule from the justifications underlying the Chimel exception.’ ” Riley, 134 S.Ct. at 2485 (emphasis added) (quoting Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009)).

2016This court reasoned that the warrantless blood draw would have been unconstitutional because a blood test is too intrusive to fall under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and “no exigency would have prevented police from seeking a warrant before conducting a blood test.” Id. at 402-03 . 1 Because our review is de novo, we do not address Stepke’s arguments specifically assigning error to the district court’s legal analysis. 4 And third, in State v. Thompson, this court similarly held that the test-refusal statute violated substantive due proce

2016In Trahan, this court held, based on the state’s concession, that Bernard does not apply to a blood test and that a warrantless blood test cannot be justified by the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine. 870 N.W.2d at 401 .

2016Bennett, 867 N.W.2d at 543 ; see also Stevens v. Comm’r of Pub.

2016In Bennett, we held that a warrantless breath test is a lawful search incident to arrest and therefore it is not an unconstitutional search. 867 N.W.2d at 543 .

2025Ortega, 770 N.W.2d at 149 n.2. 10 We stated that, after the Legislature decriminalized the possession of a small amount of marijuana in 1976, “probable cause to suspect that a person possesses a non-criminal amount of marijuana, in and of itself, does not trigger the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (citing State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404 , 405–06 (Minn. 1977) (holding that an arrest based on probable cause for possessing a small amount of marijuana was unconstitutional and, as a result, so was a search incident to that arrest)).

2009State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404, 405-06 (Minn.1977).

2016Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S. Ct. 2034, 2040 (1969); State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2000).

2016Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S. Ct. 2034, 2040 (1969); State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2000).

2025Whereas probable cause to search requires police to have a reasonable belief that incriminating evidence is in a certain location, probable cause to arrest requires police to have a reasonable belief that a certain person has committed a crime.” (citations omitted)); see also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 49 (1970) (“[T]he search of an auto[mobile based] on probable cause proceeds on a theory wholly different from that justifying the search incident to an arrest[.]”). 16 evidence of only a noncriminal amount of marijuana.” Douglas, 12 N.W.3d at 767 (Ross, J., dissenting).

2025Ortega, 770 N.W.2d at 149 n.2. 10 We stated that, after the Legislature decriminalized the possession of a small amount of marijuana in 1976, “probable cause to suspect that a person possesses a non-criminal amount of marijuana, in and of itself, does not trigger the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (citing State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404 , 405–06 (Minn. 1977) (holding that an arrest based on probable cause for possessing a small amount of marijuana was unconstitutional and, as a result, so was a search incident to that arrest)).

2025Ortega, 770 N.W.2d at 149 n.2. 10 We stated that, after the Legislature decriminalized the possession of a small amount of marijuana in 1976, “probable cause to suspect that a person possesses a non-criminal amount of marijuana, in and of itself, does not trigger the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (citing State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404 , 405–06 (Minn. 1977) (holding that an arrest based on probable cause for possessing a small amount of marijuana was unconstitutional and, as a result, so was a search incident to that arrest)).

2016See United States v. Webster, 625 F.3d 439, 445 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Warrantless searches need only be justified by one exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement . . . .”).

2016See Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357 , 363 n.6 (Minn. 2007) (stating that the state would not be prejudiced by addressing the constitutionality of a statute because the state briefed the issue). 5 under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. 859 N.W.2d 762, 772, 774 (Minn. 2015), aff’d sub nom.

2016See State v. Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216, 221 (Minn. 2016) (determining the exception does not authorize blood tests); State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224, 232 (Minn. 2016).

2016Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S. Ct. 2034, 2040 (1969); State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2000).

2015The state also cited' State v. Riley, in which the supreme court determined that the search-incident-to-arrest exception justified a warrantless visual inspection of an arrestee’s penis in a prison cell. 303 Minn. 251, 253-55 , 226 N.W.2d 907, 909-10 (1975).

2015The state also cited' State v. Riley, in which the supreme court determined that the search-incident-to-arrest exception justified a warrantless visual inspection of an arrestee’s penis in a prison cell. 303 Minn. 251, 253-55 , 226 N.W.2d 907, 909-10 (1975).

2015See Bernard, 859 N.W.2d at 772 (breath); State v. Bonner, 275 Minn. 280, 287 , 146 N.W.2d 770, 775 (1966) (photographs and fingerprints); Emerson, 266 Minn. at 221 , 123 N.W.2d at 385 (photographs, X-rays, and medical examination); see also King, 133 S.Ct. at 1980 (buccal swab of cheek for identification under reasonableness-in-the-circumstances standard).

2015See Bernard, 859 N.W.2d at 772 (breath); State v. Bonner, 275 Minn. 280, 287 , 146 N.W.2d 770, 775 (1966) (photographs and fingerprints); Emerson, 266 Minn. at 221 , 123 N.W.2d at 385 (photographs, X-rays, and medical examination); see also King, 133 S.Ct. at 1980 (buccal swab of cheek for identification under reasonableness-in-the-circumstances standard).

2015But neither Robinson nor Riley rejected the Chimel rationales as bookends for the circumstances under which the search-incident-to-arrest exception applies. 3 See, e.g., Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 , 119 S.Ct. 484 , 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998) (rejecting the search-incident-to-arrest exception in the context of issuance of citations, “a situation where the concern for officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for destruction or loss of evidence is not present at all.”).

2015But neither Robinson nor Riley rejected the Chimel rationales as bookends for the circumstances under which the search-incident-to-arrest exception applies. 3 See, e.g., Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 , 119 S.Ct. 484 , 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998) (rejecting the search-incident-to-arrest exception in the context of issuance of citations, “a situation where the concern for officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for destruction or loss of evidence is not present at all.”).

2015See, e.g., State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489 , 492–93 (Me. 1985) (rejecting the search-incident-to-arrest exception as justifying a warrantless blood draw, but upholding the test under the exigent circumstances exception); State v. Stern, 846 A.2d 64, 68 (N.H. 2004) (suggesting that exigent circumstances is the only exception that can justify a warrantless blood draw); State v. Welch, 342 S.E.2d 789, 794 (N.C. 1986) (same); State v. Villarreal, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 WL 6734178, at *18 (Tex. Crim.

2015See, e.g., State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489, 492-93 (Me. 1985) (rejecting the search-incident-to-arrest exception as justifying a warrantless blood draw, but upholding the test under the exigent circumstances exception); State v. Stem, 150 N.H. 705 , 846 A.2d 64, 68 (2004) (suggesting that exigent circumstances is the only exception that can justify a warrantless blood draw); State v. Welch, 316 N.C. 578 , 342 S.E.2d 789, 794 (1986) (same); State v. Villarreal, — S.W.3d -, -, 2014 WL 6734178, at *18 (Tex.Crim.App.

2015See, e.g., United States v. Reid, 929 F.2d 990, 994 (4th Cir.1991) (holding that breathalyzer tests were reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment because they were searches incident to lawful arrests); Burnett v. Municipality of Anchorage, 806 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir.1986) (“It is clear then that the breathalyzer examination in question is an appropriate and reasonable search incident to arrest which appellants have no constitutional right to refuse.”); Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1005 (11th Cir.1986) (holding that “officers would have been justified in conducting a [breath] search” u

2015See, e.g., United States v. Reid, 929 F.2d 990, 994 (4th Cir.1991) (holding that breathalyzer tests were reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment because they were searches incident to lawful arrests); Burnett v. Municipality of Anchorage, 806 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir.1986) (“It is clear then that the breathalyzer examination in question is an appropriate and reasonable search incident to arrest which appellants have no constitutional right to refuse.”); Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1005 (11th Cir.1986) (holding that “officers would have been justified in conducting a [breath] search” u