ND: Refusal to submit statute doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment under McNeely

The North Dakota refusal to submit statute doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment or state constitution under McNeely. State v. Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 5 (January 15, 2015):

[*P11] Since the McNeely decision, we have held that consent to a chemical test is not coerced and is not rendered involuntary merely by a law enforcement officer’s reading of the implied consent advisory that accurately informs the arrestee of the consequences for refusal, including the administrative and criminal penalties, and presents the arrestee with a choice. See McCoy, 2014 ND 119, ¶ 21, 848 N.W.2d 659; Smith, 2014 ND 152, ¶ 16, 849 N.W.2d 599; State v. Boehm, 2014 ND 154, ¶ 20, 849 N.W.2d 239; Fetch, 2014 ND 195, ¶ 9. The United States Supreme Court has not decided, and it is a question of first impression in North Dakota, whether criminalizing a refusal to consent to a chemical test violates a person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[*P12] Birchfield has not drawn our attention to any appellate court decisions striking down criminal refusal statutes, and we have found that since the Supreme Court’s ruling in McNeely, criminal refusal statutes have continued to withstand Fourth Amendment challenges, particularly in Minnesota. …

Following is State v. Washburn, 2015 ND 8, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 9 (January 15, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.