CLE: Implied Consent in Minnesota: Can Brooks Really Be the Last Word?
February 11, 2014
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Jane Prince, email@example.com
Law School, Room 240A
Hamline Law Alumni Board
Hamline Law Professor Ed Butterfoss along with Assistant Chisago County Attorney Ryan Flynn JD '10 and Hamline Law Adjunct Professor and Minnesota Public Defender Carol Weissenborn will discuss and debate recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence relating to implied consent. In Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), the United States Supreme Court held that the warrant requirement applies to police officers taking breath, urine, or blood samples and is not excused by the mere fact that alcohol naturally dissipates in the blood stream. Following McNeely, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided State v. Brooks, holding that in the usual case, where an officer executes a D.U.I. stop, accurately reads the statutory implied consent advisory, and does not employ any coercive tactics, a suspect's consent to testing is voluntary, despite the fact that, as the implied consent advisory explains, it is a crime to refuse consent. Whether this "criminalization" of consent can withstand further scrutiny, perhaps by the United States Supreme Court, is one of the most debated questions in Minnesota legal circles. Join us as a panel of experts discusses the meaning of Brooks and debates its future.
Register to attend in person or by LIVE WEBCAST by email to firstname.lastname@example.org or call 651-523-2338.
1 Standard CLE credit has been applied for.