MN: DWI BAC test is “reasonable” under Skinner and satisfies a legitimate state interest under McNeeley

Minnesota finds no “unconstitutional conditions” in DWI BAC test. It is also “reasonable” under Skinner and satisfies a legitimate state interest. Stevens v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 69 (July 14, 2014):

The Supreme Court opinion in Skinner v. Railway Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S. Ct. 1402 (1989), is helpful in resolving this issue. In that case, the Court considered federal regulations that required railroads to administer suspicionless drug and alcohol tests to any railroad employee who was involved in a major accident. Id. at 609-10, 109 S. Ct. at 1409. The regulations provided, among other things, that employees who refused to provide blood or urine samples may be disqualified from work for nine months. Id. at 610-11, 109 S. Ct. at 1409. The question before the Court was whether the warrantless, suspicionless searches conducted pursuant to the regulations violated the railroad employees’ Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 606, 109 S. Ct. at 1407. The Court invoked the special-needs exception to the warrant requirement and balanced the intrusion on the employees’ privacy interests against the government’s need to conduct the searches. Id. at 620, 109 S. Ct. at 1415. The Court reasoned that “the expectations of privacy of covered employees are diminished by reason of their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively,” id. at 627, 109 S. Ct. at 1418, and that the tests do not constitute “an unduly extensive imposition on an individual’s privacy and bodily integrity,” id. at 625, 109 S. Ct. at 1417 (quotation omitted). The Court also reasoned that the government’s need to conduct the searches was great because it has a compelling interest in “ensuring the safety of the traveling public and of the employees themselves,” id. at 621, 109 S. Ct. 1415, and that this goal is dependent on the sobriety of railroad employees, id. at 627, 109 S. Ct. 1418-19. The Court noted evidence that on-the-job intoxication was a significant problem in the railroad industry, that a significant number of railway accidents involved drugs or alcohol, and that a significant number of accidents resulted in fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and millions of dollars in property damage. Id. at 606-07, 109 S. Ct. 1407-08. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the government’s compelling interests outweighed the individuals’ privacy interests such that the regulations were reasonable and, thus, constitutional. Id. at 633, 109 S. Ct. at 1421-22.

For similar reasons, the implied-consent statute also satisfies the general reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The first factor we must consider is the “promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” See Vernonia Sch. Dist., 515 U.S. at 653, 115 S. Ct. at 2390 (quotation omitted). These interests are especially strong in this case. For decades, the harms caused by drunken driving have been a matter of serious concern. See, e.g., State v. Hanson, 543 N.W.2d 84, 89-90 (Minn. 1996); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180, 186 (Minn. 1983) (Peterson, J., concurring specially); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 558, 103 S. Ct. 916, 920 (1983) (noting that “carnage caused by drunk drivers is well documented”); Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 439, 77 S. Ct. 408, 412 (1957) (noting “increasing slaughter on our highways”); State v. Henning, 666 N.W.2d 379, 386-91 (Minn. 2003) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (reasoning that suspicionless stop of driver with special license plates, conducted pursuant to statute, was reasonable). In 2000, the legislature enacted a new chapter of the Minnesota Statutes to address drunken driving in a more extensive manner. See 2000 Minn. Laws. ch. 478, art. I, § 7 (codified at Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.01-.76 (2000)); compare Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.01-.76 (2000) with Minn. Stat. § 169.121-.123 (1998). Yet a significant number of persons still are killed or injured each year in Minnesota in motor-vehicle accidents involving alcohol. The frequency and extent of the problem of drunken driving in Minnesota appears to be greater than the situation that justified the federal regulations at issue in Skinner, in which, over a 12-year period, “the nation’s railroads experienced at least 21 significant train accidents involving alcohol or drug use as a probable cause or contributing factor,” resulting in “25 fatalities [and] 61 non-fatal injuries.” See 489 U.S. at 607, 109 S. Ct. at 1408 (quotation omitted). These statistics indicate that the state’s interest in removing a driver from the roads after an arrest for DWI is at least as strong, if not stronger, than the government’s interest in removing a railroad employee from the workplace if the employee failed a drug or alcohol test.