So what would you do if a cop came to your house and demanded to search your house? You would probably ask him if he had a warrant, right? And what if he tells you that he doesn’t have a search warrant, but he wants to look through your house anyway? You’d probably refuse, wouldn’t you?
Ok, what if he then places you under arrest — for refusing to let him search your house? And you’re then charged with — and convicted of — the crime of refusing to permit the officer to conduct that illegal search? Not in America, right?
What if the cop wanted to search inside your body rather than inside your house?
Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Breath Test Refusal Law
Minneapolis, MN. The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld a state law making it illegal for suspected drunken drivers to refuse a breath test.
The high court rejected a man’s claim that the law violated due process by preventing him from refusing an unconstitutional, warrantless search….
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota had submitted a brief arguing that it is unconstitutional to apply criminal penalties to drivers solely because they refused a search without a warrant. ACLU-MN executive director Charles Samuelson said his organization, which was not representing Bernard, was disappointed by the ruling. He said the court had set “a dangerous precedent.”
“Imagine if the police could charge us with a crime if we refused to allow them into our houses without a warrant,” Samuelson said in a statement. “People would be outraged.”
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.
Welcome to "The DUI Exception to the Constitution".