MN: The search incident doctrine permits a breathalyzer test in a DUI case, so a refusal charge doesn’t violate a fundamental right

The search incident doctrine permits a breathalyzer test in a DUI case. Thus, a refusal charge doesn’t violate a fundamental right. State v. Bernard, 2015 Minn. LEXIS 46 (February 11, 2015) (5-2):

Our conclusion that a warrantless breath test does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it falls under the search-incident-to-a-valid-arrest exception is consistent with decisions from other courts. See, 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” under the search-incident-to-arrest exception); Wing v. State, 268 P.3d 1105, 1110 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012) (holding that a breath test was a valid search incident to arrest); State v. Dowdy, 332 S.W.3d 868, 870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (same); State v. Hill, No. 2008-CA-0011, 2009 WL 1485026, at *5 (Ohio Ct. App. May 22, 2009) (same); Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp. v. McFarren, 525 A.2d 1185, 1188 (Pa. 1987) (same). Indeed, our research has not revealed a single case anywhere in the country that holds that a warrantless breath test is not permissible under the search-incident-to-a-valid-arrest exception.