DWI case could usher in new rules for officers

Even the defense attorney agrees that Janet Sue Shriner was "highly intoxicated" when she crashed head-on into a car, injuring its driver in Burnsville.

But a Dakota County judge tossed the evidence of her intoxication out of court and dismissed charges of first-degree drunken driving and criminal vehicular operation after her attorney, Jeffrey Ring, argued that police should have at least tried to obtain a search warrant before her blood was taken to test its alcohol content.

The case is now in the hands of the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has been asked to weigh the potential of evidence disappearing as the suspect's body metabolizes alcohol against the suspect's Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Assistant County Attorney Debra Schmidt argued before the high court Wednesday that for 42 years law enforcement has been using a protocol set by a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Law enforcers have interpreted that to mean that when probable cause of a crime exists, the presence of alcohol is enough to allow for a warrantless blood draw.

The ruling, for now, would affect criminal vehicular operation or homicide cases, which involve injury or death, but could at some point affect other less-serious drunken driving offenses. Under Minnesota law, the proof of drunken driving is blood-alcohol content measured within two hours of the offense.

Prosecutors and law enforcement officials said that if the Supreme Court affirms the earlier rulings by the district and Appeals Court, it will create more chaos and confusion at accident scenes.

"What the Appeals Court decision does is ask police officers under very stressful circumstances with very competing demands to make split-second decisions on essentially constitutional issues," said Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner. "That's not reasonable. We're talking about situations where an accident has occurred, often a serious one, with mangled cars, bleeding bodies, possibly fatalities. And evidence of drinking. That's not the kind of circumstances where you want a police officer worrying about delaying what he needs to do by getting a warrant."

Shriner, 48, of Burnsville, had four other drunken driving convictions since 1998 when she drove the wrong way in traffic and crashed head-on into another vehicle on an evening in May 2006. The other driver's head and leg were injured, and Shriner drove away, continuing to go the wrong way against traffic, drove along a sidewalk and crossed a busy intersection against a red light. An officer eventually forced her to stop.

She had bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol and couldn't stand up, the criminal complaint said. The officer took her to a nearby hospital and had her blood drawn without her consent. She was charged in Dakota County District Court with first-degree drunken driving, criminal vehicular operation, fleeing police, driving after cancellation, leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving.

State Patrol Maj. Mike Asleson, who oversees the patrol's nine outstate districts, said, "If the court says we have to go through the process, we'll go through the process." But, he said, it would add "one more complicated process in a process that's already complicated and time consuming."

Added Asleson, "We don't have extra people sitting around with nothing to do. Often we're strapped to find enough people to do the important tasks."

In fact, the court hasn't been asked to ban drawing blood for a test in all cases, but if officers don't have a search warrant, they would need to prove why it was unreasonable to get one.

Ring acknowledged Wednesday that obtaining a search warrant would not be possible in every case. But in the Shriner case, he said, the officer who stopped her had no other duties at the accident scene, was six blocks from a hospital and testified that he had no fear that evidence would be destroyed because the alcohol in her blood had dissipated.

"There was nothing, nothing to compel [the officer] not to seek a warrant," Ring said.

The Supreme Court justices questioned both attorneys extensively, but gave no indication of which way they are leaning.

During Schmidt's oral argument, Justice Helen Meyer asked her: "Is there a situation that you can imagine where an officer has time to get a warrant?"

Schmidt responded, "We're not arguing this applies across the board [but] in a criminal vehicular operation case, where you want to have the test in two hours, or less than two hours I would say ... it would be almost impossible to comply with the requirements."

"Why would we not require an officer to say I could not get the warrant because of A, B or C so I proceeded?" Meyer asked.

"Officers have been trained that when you have probable cause to believe you are at the scene of a criminal vehicular operation case, you just take them to the hospital and get a blood test," Schmidt said.

The Supreme Court took the case under advisement. Shriner's case remains on hold until the justices issue their ruling, which could take three months.

Pat Pheifer • 651-298-1551