MN: Davis good faith exception applies to police conduct prior to McNeely in DUI warrants

Davis good faith exception applies to police conduct prior to McNeely in DUI warrants. State v. Lindquist, 2015 Minn. LEXIS 469 (August 19, 2015):

The question presented by this case is whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated in Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2011), should apply in Minnesota. Appellant/cross-respondent Bonnie Ann Lindquist was convicted of third-degree driving while impaired (DWI). At trial, the district court admitted test results showing Lindquist’s alcohol concentration that were based on a warrantless blood draw. While Lindquist’s case was on direct appeal, the Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), which held that the dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not create a single-factor exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw of suspected drunk drivers. Lindquist now challenges her blood draw as unconstitutional under McNeely. Although we hold that McNeely applies to cases on direct review at the time of decision, we also hold that the test results from Lindquist’s warrantless blood draw, even if unconstitutionally obtained, do not need to be suppressed because the officer who facilitated the blood draw acted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. We therefore affirm the conviction.